House of Commons
Business Before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), the new farming and food Minister, and I published our new farming road map, which is the first ever long-term strategy for farming. It sets out a vision for a more productive, profitable, sustainable and resilient sector. The primary purpose of farming, as set out in the road map, is food production, which goes hand in hand with improving the environment. We are driving towards a lower-input, more nature-friendly farming system.
Dave Robertson
Farmers across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages know that one of the most important things for them to make their businesses work is access to fertiliser at a price that allows them to be profitable. What can the Government do to ensure that fertiliser prices do not spike, as we have seen in the last couple of years, and remain stable in the long term?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are engaging with the National Farmers’ Union on this; we know it is a great concern for farmers. We have asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to increase fertiliser price reporting, so it is now doing that weekly rather than monthly. We have already consulted on suspending tariffs for certain fertilisers, and we have rolled out an online tool to help farmers use fertilisers more efficiently.
Anna Gelderd
Food producers in South East Cornwall, including our farmers and fishermen, are at the heart of our community, economy and food security, so I really welcome the work the Government have done to develop the new farming road map in partnership with farmers and the recognition that profitable farm businesses are essential to food security. As I will be meeting farmers at the Liskeard show later this week, will the Secretary of State set out immediate opportunities in the road map and explain how the Farming and Food Partnership Board will ensure that farmers like mine continue to shape its implementation, giving them clarity and confidence to invest in the long-term profitability and resilience of their business?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend does representing her local farmers, and I hope the Liskeard show goes well later this week. The Farming and Food Partnership Board, which has already been established, is working on two sector growth plans, starting with poultry and horticulture, to bring down barriers to growth. We are taking forward the road map’s vision to ensure that farmers are more productive and profitable; that is how we will proceed.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Attracting the next generation of farmers is key to the long-term sustainability of the sector. I recently visited Great Smeaton young farmers’ club, and it was wonderful to see both their contribution to the local community and their commitment to farming. Groups like that are vital to engaging young people in farming. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Great Smeaton YFC and the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs for their important contribution to our national life?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more. I absolutely pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s local young farmers’ club. As he knows, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs, and we engaged with it on the drafting of the farming road map. We always have young farmers in our minds when we are designing policy, because we are committed to ensuring that the next generation can enter the sector. We are looking particularly in the road map at encouraging longer-term tenancies, which we know is an easier way to get into the sector. We have also asked the Law Commission to review legislation on farming tenancies. Like him, I am committed to ensuring that the next generation has a voice in our policies.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The NFU is concerned that the £240 million allocated for new sustainable farming incentive agreements in 2026 does not match the scale of farmers’ environmental ambitions and will not allow all farmers with expiring agreements a reasonable opportunity to access ongoing environmental land management schemes funding. How will the Government support farmers like mine in South Devon, who are keen to protect the environment while producing food but are unable to secure a new SFI agreement under this limited budget, to continue their valuable environmental work?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure the hon. Lady that those farmers whose agreements are coming to an end towards the end of this year or early next year—there are obviously thousands—will be able to apply in the second window. We have made the technological advances necessary to ensure that that can happen. I know that issue has been raised with me in previous DEFRA oral questions, and we have taken it forward since then. We have a record farming budget for sustainable farming of £11.8 billion over the course of this Parliament. This is obviously not just about public funding; it is about how we work with the sector and how parts of the sector collaborate with each other. That is why we have put £30 million into a farmer collaboration fund and why we are also backing agritech.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Delinked payments dramatically reduced; SFI stopped and started and ultimately made competitive; targets to dramatically reduce livestock numbers recommended; the state given more power to buy farmland below market value; the fertiliser tax; the double cab pick-up tax; the introduction of family farm and family business tax; Natural England given more power; an EU realignment deal that is set to cost our farmers thousands and result in job losses; and the annual grant for young farmers removed for the first time—oh, but beavers have been released. Which one of those measures that the Secretary of State has introduced in the last two years does she think will support the long-term financial sustainability of our farming businesses?
Emma Reynolds
I would take our record over the hon. Gentleman’s record any time. The Conservatives could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget when they were in power. They sold farmers down the river on various trade deals, but we have not; we have protected farmers in our trade deals. We have set out the first-ever long-term road map and vision for the farming sector, and we have worked closely with it. We commissioned Minette Batters, the former president of the NFU, to do an independent profitability review, and we are taking forward the vast majority of her recommendations. We are working in close partnership with the sector. That is all in stark contrast with what happened under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Dartmoor ponies are a vital part of our landscape and history. As the Environment Secretary, I have a duty to protect our native species, which obviously include Dartmoor ponies. I want to see the number of Dartmoor ponies maintained and the condition of Dartmoor improved.
Steve Race
I recognise the work that the Secretary of State and Ministers have done on this issue, and I thank them for their engagement. While the Conservatives rejected recommendation 27 of the Fursdon review, will she reassure me that this Government will find a solution that works for all the communities on Dartmoor and ensure a thriving population of Dartmoor ponies? Will she join me on Dartmoor in the coming weeks to see these beautiful native creatures and the organisations that care for them?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this important issue. I know there is a lot of concern in his local area and beyond about Dartmoor ponies, but I reassure him that under this Government, there will be no planned reduction in the number of Dartmoor ponies. I am working on solutions to support this fantastic native species, and I will set out further details on that soon. I would love to visit and see the ponies for myself.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Natural England proposed that overall livestock grazing limits should be reduced to reduce overgrazing, and it was not specific to ponies—it was about overgrazing by sheep and cattle. Ponies can help to graze invasive grasses and promote biodiversity. The people who developed the Change.org petition were doing the right thing, but does the Secretary of State share my view that it was cynical of the Conservative party to develop a shadow petition to gather voter intention data?
Emma Reynolds
I agree. Given that the Conservatives created this mess by rejecting some of the Fursdon recommendations, it is a bit rich of them to have a go at the current Government, as we are trying to clear up their mess on this issue and many others. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the different issues on Dartmoor. A third of the moor is a site of special scientific interest, and we must ensure that we put measures in place to better enable the moor to recover, particularly during the winter. We must ensure that the grazing is more widespread, rather than concentrated in the SSSI. I have recently met with the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group to discuss these issues, and, as I have said, I will continue to pursue a solution that protects Dartmoor ponies and restores the environmental condition of the SSSI.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
This Government inherited record levels of river pollution. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, making pollution cover-ups a criminal offence; more than doubled the number of Environment Agency inspections to 10,000 a year; and, only yesterday, introduced automatic fines for polluting water companies. Our clean water Bill will stop water companies marking their own homework and deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Rachael Maskell
This weekend, I will be competing in York’s dragon boat race on the River Ouse, but with 3,779 sewage dumps last year, the river is the second worst for pollution. The clean water Bill gives us the opportunity to take control of our water, ending the cycle of profiteering from failure, leaving our rivers full of sewage and chemicals and inaccessible to swimmers, rowers and all who enjoy them. Will the Minister urgently review her plans and take water back under public ownership, so that we can clean up this dirty business?
Emma Hardy
I wish my hon. Friend and her team the very best of luck in this weekend’s boat race, and I share her outrage at the amount of pollution we are seeing in so many of our beautiful rivers. One of the things in our clean water Bill that is worth highlighting is the introduction of regional planning, to give local communities more say over the water system in their area.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In 2025, sewage was dumped into the Ashridge stream, Emm brook, Barkham brook and the River Loddon in my constituency. Residents are thoroughly fed up with Thames Water’s repeated pollution and lack of accountability. Will the Government introduce mutual ownership of water companies, professionally managed, to put customers and the environment first?
Emma Hardy
I also share the hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the amount of pollution he is seeing in the environment, and recognise how much this impacts not only the local environment, but the people who live in his area. As he knows, the White Paper we published states that we will develop a clear transitional process for companies that wish to explore alternative forms of ownership, including not-for-profits and mutuals.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Without action, we face a possible water supply deficit of 5 billion litres a day by 2055. This is why projects such as the Teddington direct river abstraction scheme are vital, to help secure London’s water supply during droughts. Any discharges to the Thames from this scheme will be subject to strict water quality assessments.
Sarah Olney
Two months ago, Ham and Kingston riverside became the first site in London to gain bathing water status, but Thames Water’s ill-conceived Teddington direct river abstraction proposal will see treated sewage discharged into the Thames above Teddington lock. Thames Water has submitted a report to the Environment Agency on the testing of a pilot plant, which shows that after just one month, the water quality would fail to maintain PFOS chemicals within regulatory limits. That bathing site is already a popular destination for local residents. It would be a travesty if Thames Water were allowed to dump treated sewage into the stream, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the environmental and social impact of the Teddington direct river abstraction proposal?
Emma Hardy
I recognise that Ham and Kingston riverside is one of the first designated bathing water spots in the whole of London, which is quite exciting for the city. When we designate bathing water sites, the water quality is monitored regularly throughout the season. That information is made publicly available, and of course, any allowance for any abstraction scheme or water recycling scheme will be subject to strict environmental tests.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
This Government are backing the vital British pig sector by delivering fairer supply chains and stronger protections for producers. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025 are ending unfair contract practices, with all pre-existing contracts required to be compliant by 13 August. This will give farmers greater certainty, transparency and confidence to invest, grow their businesses, and strengthen the long-term resilience of the sector.
John Lamont
Will the Minister join me in praising all of our fantastic pig farmers—including Adam Marshall from Berwickshire—who do an incredible job in very difficult circumstances? The National Pig Association believes that independent pig producers are currently losing as much as £50 per pig, which is clearly not sustainable for any business. What consideration has the Minister made of the adequacy of the 2025 Regulations, especially regarding imbalances in power and price abuse?
Stephen Morgan
I pay tribute to all those who work in the pig sector across our country. I recognise the challenges that pig farmers are facing. This Government are taking action to strengthen protections for pig farmers, particularly where there are severe losses and disruption, as the sector has been facing in recent years. We will ensure fairer, more transparent contracts to build a resilient and profitable industry.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Many independent pig producers, including smaller family farms in my South West Norfolk constituency, have been served notice on their contracts by processors. The National Pig Association anticipates that, by November, more than 10,000 pigs a week could be without an outlet to be sold. Will my hon. Friend therefore agree to meet representatives from the pig sector, including the National Pig Association and the UK farming unions that cover pigs, to see what steps can be taken to support the industry through this challenging period?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this matter. The pig sector is vital to British farming, and I know from my time with him at the Royal Norfolk show the other week that he is a real champion on these issues in his constituency. I can confirm that I have received correspondence from the National Pig Association inviting me to discuss industry challenges. I have accepted that invitation and will be meeting it shortly.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
A crucial way to support pig farmers is ensuring healthy pigs, and that requires strong biosecurity and stopping illegal meat imports. When I asked DEFRA about those imports, it said that data are now not available, but alarmingly, Dover Port Health Authority reported seizing 14.2 tonnes of illegal meat in just one week in March. DEFRA has admitted to me that in the first quarter of the year, 28% of vehicles flagged at Dover did not turn up for checks at the Sevington border control post. When we have foot and mouth in Europe just last year and African swine fever advancing up the continent, we run the risk of a catastrophic animal disease outbreak. For the sake of pig farmers and all livestock farmers, when will this Government wake up, tighten our biosecurity and strengthen border controls before it is too late?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister for his engagement on this issue. Baroness Hayman in the other place has visited the port to understand the issues that he describes. We take these issues extremely seriously. I will certainly take his views back to the Department, and I am happy to meet him to discuss these issues further.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
The Government secured a major increase in the UK’s annual bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to around 230 tonnes, creating new opportunities for fishers across the United Kingdom. Licences were allocated through a fair, transparent process, with successful applicants selected by a ballot after meeting strict criteria. We continue to work with the devolved Governments and Crown dependencies to support the growth of this important fishery.
Torcuil Crichton
My constituent, Angus Campbell, held the only commercial licence for tuna in 2025. He has invested thousands in equipment and a route to market for the bluefin tuna now swimming off the Atlantic coast of the Hebrides. This year, he got no licence. In fact, the two applications that came from Scotland came from the Western Isles, but of the 29 licences allocated, none came to Scotland. Will the Minister review why there is no regional distribution of licences? Why was a fisher with an established track record of commercial landings turned down? Can the Minister look for a speedy resolution through a second round of licensing from the approximately 100 tonnes of quota allocated to tag and release, mortalities, bycatch and scientific research?
Stephen Morgan
As my hon. Friend rightly says, one Scottish fisher secured a commercial bluefin tuna licence in 2025, authorised through a fair and transparent application process. That fisher was unsuccessful in 2026. As set out in guidance, due to demand, authorisations are currently issued for one year only and are not automatically renewed. We are working with Scotland and other fisheries administrations to gather evidence on the current approach, and we will certainly consider my hon. Friend’s ideas and views further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I do not know how to respond to that, Mr Speaker, but I will take it that it was meant in a good way.
I echo what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said and I ask the Minister to focus on Northern Ireland. Why are Northern Ireland’s sustainable rod and reel fishers being treated as second-class citizens? Will he commit to sitting down with the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation to rewrite these unfair rules, so that our fishermen can access a fair geographical equal share of this quota? If there is something for Northern Ireland fishermen, I will be fighting—
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman invited me to Northern Ireland in a Westminster Hall debate last week, rightly knowing that I am a fan of scampi. I look forward to finding time for that opportunity in due course. I thank him for his invitation to engage in these issues and I am happy to follow up with him.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Innovation and productivity go hand in hand, and the Government are backing British agri-tech with real investment. Innovation is central to our farming road map, and I recently announced that we are boosting the farming innovation programme to £123 million this year. We are also working across Government—for example, with the Department for Business and Trade—to open up new export opportunities and drive growth, productivity and jobs across the sector.
Josh Newbury
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently had the privilege of visiting New Zealand. We met an Innovate UK delegation promoting incredible British agri-tech innovations like cups that enable substrate-free hydroponics, vegetables that have 40 times the iron content, and AI analysis of drone, satellite and sensor data. Does the Secretary of State agree that agri-tech will be a key growth area for the UK? Will she work with counterparts in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and DBT to accelerate the success of British agri-tech start-ups?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government absolutely recognise the potential of agri-tech as a high-growth sector. That is why it is included in the Government’s industrial strategy. The UK is already a world leader in agri-tech, but we want to ensure that we maintain that leadership. Under this Government, we will continue to bolster our position and boost global exports, as he suggested. We are supporting British agri-tech innovations, such as automated fruit pickers, which are already being used around the world. We should be proud of our strong research base and our culture of farming innovation.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I encourage the Secretary of State to visit the Roslin Institute, just outside Edinburgh. It is most famous, of course, for the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and it is one of the world’s leading agri-tech centres. Although it is in Scotland, it is extremely important that it is regarded as a UK asset, and I hope that she will promote it in that way.
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman that the centre is a UK national asset. I or the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), would be pleased to visit to learn more about what it is doing.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The level of pollution in the River Wye is unacceptable and we are working to accelerate progress to tackle it, including by funding a £1 million research programme to identify sources of pollution and develop practical solutions to improve water quality. We are also rolling out early pilots of regional planning, which involved a workshop with stakeholders in the Severn region on 15 May.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the Minister for all her hard work on the River Wye, but as she knows, time is running out for that iconic river. With temperatures rising to dangerous levels, our fish stocks will be further affected. The Wye needs a water protection zone across the English and Welsh parts of the river to mandate larger riverside buffer zones, prevent soil erosion and force authorities to crack down on polluters. The proposed clean water Bill could give the Minister an opportunity to bring in a water protection zone, so can she promise today that she will do that and make sure that this Government are the one to save the River Wye?
Emma Hardy
I recognise all the important work that my hon. Friend has put into this important campaign, and how much she cares about protecting this beautiful river. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency to explore all the available options, which include, of course, a water protection zone. Any designation must be evidence-led and targeted to ensure that the right measures are in place to tackle pollution effectively and to deliver lasting improvements to water quality.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My constituency has been devastated by water pollution. We are now nearly seven years into a planning moratorium that has decimated the construction industry, because of pollution in the River Lugg, a tributary of the Wye. We are 10 years on from the first court case that said the Government should publish a plan to clean it up, but that plan, last year, set out that the current measures will not get close to fixing the problem. We urgently need a water protection zone. Will the Minister come to North Herefordshire to meet local campaigners, citizen scientists and farmers to understand why we need that water protection zone, and make a commitment to bring one in to finally resolve this problem?
Emma Hardy
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), we are working with the EA to explore all the available options, which includes a water protection zone. It is an incredibly important issue, and I know how much the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cares about it —I recognise that the Wye is a beautiful river. We have the £1 million research project, which is working directly with farmers and land managers. The EA has already conducted 1,246 farm inspections and issued 1,183 improvement actions around the River Wye since 2022.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Since publishing the waste crime action plan in March, we have started clearing illegal waste at Kidlington, and we are investigating clearing up sites in Wigan, Sheffield and Hyndburn. We have arrested 18 waste criminals, launched the digital waste tracking scheme, so that we can see where the waste goes in near real time, and this week we approved legislation for tougher powers to tackle rogue criminals. We have 300,000 people registered to transport waste in this country, but not all of them are legit.
Lauren Edwards
I really welcome the three-pronged strategy in the Government’s waste crime action plan—focused on prevention, enforcement and remediation—and I welcome the small number of recent and really significant illegal waste sites, which the Minister mentioned, that will be assessed for clearance. Will the Minister, however, outline how older but equally significant sites such as Brambletree wharf, which has blighted my local community for nearly a decade, can be tackled under the plan?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is right that, under the previous Government, there was a large amount of illegally dumped waste—about 30,000 tonnes between 2018 and 2022. Enforcement action is being taken by Medway council through a planning enforcement notice, using planning powers to remove the existing illegal businesses, and the EA will be serving an enforcement notice on the landowner to remove the waste. The difference between this Government and the last is that we are taking action. If people spot waste crime taking place, they should call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Fly-tippers tend to vanish just as the mess gets traced back to them—much like Nigel Farage earlier this week. Closer to home, I led a community walkabout with the Friends of Outer Devonshire, alongside residents such as Emma Boyes and Kay Skinner, to look at fly-tipping hotspots in Eastbourne. Will the Minister commend them for their work, and outline what steps the Government will take to support them and their community to tackle fly-tipping once and for all?
Mary Creagh
The hon. Member is absolutely right that fly-tippers are despoiling our countryside, and I pay tribute to his local group for taking such great action to keep the beaches and countryside clean. We have introduced a penalty of up to nine points on fly-tippers’ driving licences. Often these people are just doing a job for mates at the weekend, and if they could lose their driving licence, it will certainly make them think twice about doing such jobs. However, fly-tippers are often part of a much wider serious and organised crime group. We should not think of them as little criminals, because they can often be part of quite a big criminal gang.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My constituents who live close to the Flusco landfill site in Newbiggin are one of many communities right across the country bearing the brunt of this nationwide scandal. The owners of the site—a legitimate one on paper—have been judged to have flagrantly broken environmental regulations. Like many other sites, this one has been ineffectively regulated and poorly policed. Residents cannot leave out their washing or let their kids play outside. In this heat especially, the stench can be unbearable, and the leachate and gases utterly intolerable. Meanwhile, the country is being ripped off as the Government’s landfill taxes are being flouted to the tune of at least £1 billion every year. Will the Government act urgently and powerfully to help my constituents and all those living near landfill sites, which in recent years have become toxic in every sense?
Mary Creagh
I was pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) to talk about the activities at these waste sites. Unpicking the work happening there is a long and complex legal process involving multi-agency and cross-agency working. We now have a properly funded waste crime enforcement unit. The funding for that unit was a mere £10 million in 2023-24, but it has had an extra £5 million this year to take it up to £15 million, and then we are doubling it to £30 million. That is the way we take these people down.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Since our last oral questions, we have recently published England’s first long-term farming road map, as I mentioned earlier, and we have opened the first application window for our reformed sustainable farming incentive. I visited the Groundswell agricultural festival to see regenerative farming in action, and I will be at the Great Yorkshire show next week.
Our water delivery taskforce has recently unlocked the infrastructure needed to support nearly 20,000 new homes in East Anglia, and we are taking action to ensure that products on British supermarket shelves such as coffee and cocoa are not linked to illegal deforestation overseas. Like the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), I spoke at London Climate Action Week about our bold action to restore nature, and I welcomed the UN Secretary-General to Kew Gardens. Yesterday I announced the biggest ever investment in species recovery.
Finally, we are a nation of animal lovers, as you know very well, Mr Speaker. I have today published the Government’s plans to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in order to deliver better outcomes for this great profession—the Act has not been updated since 1966—and our much-loved pets.
Callum Anderson
Farmers in north Buckinghamshire have raised queries with me regarding the transition from environmental land management agreements that expired this year to the funding available through the much-welcomed sustainable farming incentive 2026. Will the Secretary of State set out how the Government are supporting farmers through the transition, so that there are no unintended funding gaps for those who want to deliver positive environmental outcomes?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We have worked in close partnership with farmers and stakeholders to shape the new SFI. I can reassure my hon. Friend, and Members across the House, that those farmers who have soon-to-expire ELM revenue agreements will be able to apply in the second window of SFI later this year, in September.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
In recent weeks, DEFRA’s quangos have made headlines: the Environment Agency is failing to prosecute waste criminals, instead going after virtuous volunteers who are cleaning up the rivers for it; Natural England is demanding more madcap fish schemes at Hinkley Point C, on top of its recommended £700 million fish disco policy, all of which will be paid for by our constituents; and Natural England’s threat to Dartmoor ponies was the quickest U-turn yet by this Government. Does the Secretary of State feel she has control over these quangos?
Emma Reynolds
That is some brass neck, given that the whole issue of the Dartmoor ponies was created under the right hon. Lady’s Government. They rejected several of the Fursdon review recommendations and put the future of the Dartmoor ponies in doubt. We are having to clear up their mess, so I shall take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.
Victoria Atkins
Oh dear. This may be the last time the Secretary of State gets to give such an inadequate answer to what is a reasonable question about her grip on her Department. But let us look at Labour’s wider chaos. After two years of record-breaking tax rises and the highest number of farm closures, the next version of a Labour Government are coming back for even more, with rumours of a brand-new tax on land value, which will target rural residents from their gardens to their farms. Has Labour learned nothing from its family farm tax fiasco, which every Labour Member voted for?
Emma Reynolds
The right hon. Lady lectures us about regulators. We have a tighter grip on our arms-length bodies than the Conservatives did when they were in Government. I issued strategic policy statements to all ALBs earlier this year, writing to the chairs of those organisations to tell them about the Government’s direction of travel. Under her Government, the reason we saw record levels of pollution in our waterways was that they took their foot off the gas and took a blind eye to water companies polluting rivers. And they introduced a system of self-monitoring that was equivalent to Ofsted not sending anybody out to do any inspections of schools.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend of that. He will have seen that I wrote to Ofwat setting out my early concerns that the creditors’ current proposal does not do enough to protect customers and the environment. The protection of consumers and the environment is at the forefront of all my thinking. I reassure him that we will always act in the national interest. We stand ready for all eventualities, including applying for a special administration regime if that becomes necessary.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Our waste collection systems are completely different from those in Germany and France, where they have a wide network of bring banks for glass. We have the privilege of having glass collected in our household waste collection schemes. I am conscious of the dual burden that is falling on pubs, and I have tasked my officials with working at pace on the issue to find a solution for the pubs that we are all enjoying in this hot weather, with the great football. I wish England the best for their match at the weekend.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Mary Creagh
As we push the waste criminals out of the sector, there will be more business for legitimate operators. That also means that the carrier registration number has to be carried on the Facebook ads, leaflets and vans of waste transporters, so that householders have confidence that the people we are giving our waste to will dispose of it correctly. We are not going to have a system where dead dogs and cows can be registered. We are going to introduce criminal record and identity checks and ensure that everyone knows what they are doing when they are transporting hazardous waste.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Last Thursday I met some of the water companies from the areas that will have the extreme heatwave, to be reassured that they will not run out of water during that period. Ofwat has also launched a public information campaign about the value of water. He will know from my previous answers that we have the water delivery taskforce, which is looking at water supply, house building ambition and growth to ensure that we have the water we need. It is one of the reasons we need to get on with building the nine reservoirs, as none have been built for the past 30 years.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises a hugely important topic, and Reuben’s story was extremely moving to hear at first hand. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been affected by sickness through using the water around England, and I share their anger, outrage and desire for change. We reformed the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 so that they are fit for purpose, and we are looking at water quality classification information. We also have the Environment Agency’s Swimfo website. We will continue to look at how we can best keep bathers safe.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
As I mentioned, I am due to meet the National Pig Association in due course. I take those issues seriously and I want to ensure that there is certainty and clarity in the sector. We recently published our farming road map, which brings that certainty and consistency, but I am happy to follow up on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on those important matters. This is about fairness for consumers and farmers. We want people to know where their food comes from, trust what they are buying, and back British farmers who meet our high standards. I would happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss his helpful ideas.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The beautiful River Wey runs through my constituency, but storm overflows from the Farnham sewage treatment works are increasingly polluting the river, affecting my residents and businesses and those further afield, including the Peper Harow Park fly fishers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). What discussions is the Minister having with Thames Water about stopping the discharges from the Farnham sewage works?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Member is right to feel outraged at the amount of pollution and the situation with Thames Water. He will have heard the Secretary of State’s comments on what we are doing on Thames Water and her early views on the original deal put forward by the creditors to clean this up. That is why we took action with the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to bring in tougher regulation, and why just yesterday we announced automatic penalties for companies that continue to pollute.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The flooding outside Tesco in Stafford is a great example of why holding local authorities to account on drainage really matters. I recently learned that the drains were last cleaned in 2020, during covid; without regular maintenance, they will continue to block. While I am glad that it looks like a fix is finally on its way, routine drain clearance should not require an MP’s intervention. Will the Minister tell me and the House what she can do to ensure that council leadership meets its basic maintenance obligations, before the next rainfall shows that maintenance has not been done again?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no excuse for not maintaining flood defences. The Government need to hold the local authority to account for that. It has had an increased settlement and has the money with which to do the job. I hope that this lack of action by the local authority is noted by voters at the next election.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome the new Minister for farming to his post and welcome his willingness to meet the National Pig Association, and presumably the National Farmers Union Scotland pig sector, too. However, I suggest that the situation needs a bit more urgency than meeting in due course. There is a clear and present crisis for the sector, which is complex and requires action from producers, processors, retailers and regulators. Will he convene a summit of all these different interested parties and come forward with a package for help? Without it, we are going to lose the smaller independent producers.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. I take these issues extremely seriously, and will bring forward the meeting so that I see the organisation as soon as possible.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
We are going through another heatwave, but we know that well tree-lined streets can reduce temperatures by 5°C to 8°C. The data shows that we are significantly behind Europe, with 18% coverage compared with 30%, and that, where there is coverage, it is mainly in more affluent areas rather than poorer, more deprived areas. I ask the Minister to look at a national strategy, working with the relevant environmental bodies and local councils, to ramp up and increase proofing our streets against extreme heat.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is right about our tree cover, which is why I am delighted to tell him that tree planting is at its highest rate for 20 years. As we endure our second heatwave this summer, we know that we need to do more. That is why we are doubling the funding for tree planting through our trees outside woodland fund, which is £2.5 million this year, up from £1 million last year.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s mentioning an update to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966; after 60 years, it is much needed to make the Act fit for purpose to regulate new business structures and paraprofessionals such as physios, and to protect the title of veterinary nurse. Could we have an assurance that, with the change of Administration, the update will remain a priority and will not be kicked into the long grass? It is much needed right now.
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is a priority for the Government. I visited the University of Surrey’s veterinary medicine school yesterday, and we have been engaging with the sector, which wants to modernise the legislation. It is not fit for purpose—there are plenty of things available now that were not around in 1966, such as scans for animals. We are absolutely committed as a Government to modernising the legislation to the benefit of the profession—ensuring that we continue to drive up standards, celebrate good practice and root out bad practice—and to the benefit of pet owners, too.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
From sea to plate, fisheries need the same long-term certainty as farmers in order to strengthen our food security, encourage healthy, high-protein diets and help to build jobs and skills pipelines that coastal communities need. Will the Minister consider committing to adopting the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries’ national action plan?
Stephen Morgan
I welcome the leadership that my hon. Friend is demonstrating through the APPG on fisheries for industry and coastal communities like ours. The Government are focused on delivering practical support for the sector through measures such as the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, fisheries management plans and the fishing coastal growth fund. I welcomed the opportunity recently to catch up with my hon. Friend on her important work, and I look forward to engaging with the APPG on its priorities.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My constituent Guy Smith runs Sky Birds Sales, which successfully imports budgies. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has drastically changed its approach to batch testing, which is devastating his business. Will one of the Ministers meet me and my constituent to discuss this issue?
Stephen Morgan
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The biggest cause of river pollution is agricultural run-off. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, through the sustainable farming measures, she is prioritising farms that are taking action on agricultural run-off? Will she confirm that in the clean water Bill the issue of agricultural run-off will be considered alongside taking action on failing water companies?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend that agricultural pollution is top of mind for me as Secretary of State and for the Water Minister, and the issue will form part of the clean water Bill. We need to crack down on water pollution from agriculture in partnership with farmers, making sure that they have the tools that they need to do the right thing, because agricultural pollution accounts for around 42% of overall river pollution.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
At the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday, the Minister for Nature did not have a clear answer for why the national security assessment on ecosystem collapse has not been released in its full form to MPs. I got the impression that it was not her decision to withhold the full unredacted report from MPs. Whose decision was it?
Mary Creagh
We have been around the houses on this. The document that has been released talks about coral collapse by 2030 and mangrove collapse by 2050. I would say that there is enough to worry about in the document that has been released without worrying about what versions 1, 2 and 3 said.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
Jury trials remain a cornerstone of our justice system, and will always be in place for the most serious crimes. The Government must guarantee everyone a fair trial. Timeliness is essential for fairness, and the fairness of the system is being undermined by the record backlogs in the Crown court, which we inherited from the previous Conservative Government.
Dr Johnson
In restricting access to jury trials, the Government have leant quite heavily on the Leveson report, but the Government go much further than the report recommends. Will the Solicitor General explain why?
The Solicitor General
Leveson in his report stated that investment alone was not enough and that the system needs reforming as well. We have made a record £2.7 billion investment in the courts, which provides for unlimited sitting days, an increase in defence fees, and includes half a billion pounds for victims services. That is fixing the mess that we inherited.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Where is the evidence that jury trials are causing the delays? In the south-east and other parts of the country, the backlog is already falling. The Government should be commended for that, but what are the other causes of delays, and are they not much more significant than any delay caused by the fact that they are jury trials?
The Solicitor General
We have put record investment into the courts, with measures such as unlimited sitting days. The Crown Prosecution Service has increased the number of Crown advocates on the Crown advocate panel and increased support offered to victims. Leveson was clear that investment alone would not fix the problems that we inherited and the 80,000 case backlog. The proposal suggests that it will speed up cases by 20%, and that has been backed by the Institute for Government.
Douglas Lumsden
Juries are the bedrock of our legal system, and public involvement in the justice system is central to public trust and consent. It cannot, and it should not, be eroded. This is a prime example of this failing Government implementing reforms for no good reason. Why will the Solicitor General not call this out as the attack on the rule of law that it clearly is?
The Solicitor General
I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman says that the measures we are introducing are for no good reason. We inherited a courts system in crisis, with a backlog of 80,000 cases and victims waiting years for their cases to get to court. Doing nothing was not an option, which is why we have invested record amounts in our courts and why Justice Ministers are looking at reforming the system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Sir Brian Leveson made 180 recommendations, very few of which concerned juries. His review covered the whole criminal justice system, including the CPS. The Government have never responded to Sir Brian’s review, and they have never said how each of those recommendations will be treated and how they will contribute to reducing the backlog. Are they still planning to do that, and if so, when?
The Solicitor General
We have considered all of Sir Brian’s recommendations. I have met him to discuss those relating to the work of the CPS, and I continue to meet the CPS regularly to discuss what more it can do to support the criminal justice system. For example, just this week I announced the early victims’ right to review, which will be rolled out nationwide. We are also extending more support to victims of domestic abuse, offering them a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution. It is important that we do everything we can, not only to speed up cases but to make sure that victims have confidence in the justice system.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Solicitor General has just mentioned the early victims’ right to review, or the VRR. As a west midlands MP, I am proud that we were the first area in the country to trial the scheme for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Will the Solicitor General confirm that jury trials will still be available for such cases, and will she please tell Members what assessment she has made of the impact of the VRR scheme?
The Solicitor General
Jury trials will always remain in place for the most serious cases. My hon. Friend raises a point about the early victims’ right to review scheme, which will be rolled out nationwide on Monday. He is right that the west midlands led the way with the first pilot of the scheme. Under the scheme, victims of rape and serious sexual offences will have the opportunity for their case to be reviewed by a second independent prosecutor before any decision is taken to stop the case before trial. That gives victims a second chance of justice and a greater say in their case. I am pleased that the west midlands led the way on that.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Although it is a civil matter, where a jury trial cannot apply, yesterday we found out that Virgin Media has been fined a record £28 million for ripping off its customers, yet the chief executive appears to be getting off scot-free. I think that the shareholders should be considering his future and the possibility of bonuses being returned. Does the Solicitor General agree that constituents will be asking who is accountable for such predatory corporate behaviour?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, and for all those affected by this issue. I share his concerns about accountability. Although the matter does not sit with the Attorney General’s office, I will ensure that his question is passed on to the relevant Minister and he receives a response.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
At Justice questions last Tuesday, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services restated her total support for the Government’s attack on jury trials. She described it as “pragmatic structural reform”, and suggested that those who oppose it are burying
“their heads in the sand”—[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 743.]
She also said that it is a point of principle to limit trial by jury, and that she would pursue the policy regardless of the crisis in the courts. Whatever the practical concerns, are the proposed changes to jury trials also a point of principle for the Solicitor General—yes or no?
The Solicitor General
As I have set out at this Dispatch Box over recent months, Sir Brian Leveson said in his report that investment alone was not enough, and that reform was also necessary to bring down the backlog of 80,000 cases that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. Inaction just was not an option. The Ministry of Justice has had to take difficult choices. I remind the hon. Lady that, unlike the previous Conservative Government, we have invested in our courts, introduced unlimited sitting days and invested in victim services. We are doing everything we can to get the backlog down, so that victims can have their cases heard without having to wait years and years for justice.
Helen Grant
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), likely the next Prime Minister, has said that jury trials are the
“lynchpin of a fair society”
and that the plans to curb them should be paused. When he takes over, can we look forward to the Solicitor General’s supporting the scrapping or watering down of the very same changes that she has robustly supported? Does she think that any jury would believe a defendant whose story changed quite as often as this Government’s?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady will know that I am not the spokesperson for my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, but I am sure that, like all of us in the House, he is concerned about the unprecedented court backlogs that this Government inherited, and that he will engage with Ministry of Justice Ministers as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses through Parliament. Victims are waiting years for a date in court. That is why the Government have invested record amounts in the court system and will continue working to bring down the backlog.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I visited Croydon Crown court a few weeks ago with the Bar Council and listened to some of its members. It was clearer than ever that the demands of jury trials are not what is leaving victims waiting years for justice. The real question is how we get the most urgent cases listed, prioritised and heard fast to deliver timely justice for our constituents.
Will the Minister listen to calls from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the right hon. Member for Makerfield—I do not know what Count Binface thinks about this, but I am pretty sure he will be on the right side of the argument—to instead consider reforms that would make an immediate difference to Crown court backlogs, such as having specialist sexual offences and domestic abuse courts, as the Bar Council has recommended? Those would ensure that victims get justice sooner, without curtailing the fundamental right to trial by jury.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member will know that a national listing framework is being introduced to tackle some of the issues that he describes. He will also know that it was a manifesto commitment to introduce specialist rape courts. The Ministry of Justice is determined to do that, so that victims of rape and serious sexual violence are not waiting years for their cases to get to court.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Solicitor General
This week, I announced the national roll-out of the early victims’ right to review scheme. From Monday, if the Crown Prosecution Service is considering dropping a case, rape and serious sexual assault survivors across England and Wales will have the right for that view to be reviewed by a second independent prosecutor before a final decision is taken. I have sat with advocates and survivors who fight every day, and are determined for the system to change. This week, we have changed it.
Peter Swallow
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the system needs to change. I have been contacted by a constituent who has waited four years for her day in court, following her ex-partner being charged with coercive and controlling behaviour. She has seen her trial date repeatedly pushed back, often within two weeks of when it was due to start. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that this is a well-known tactic that abusers use to continue the harassment of their victims, to delay justice, and, ultimately, to frustrate their victims and urge them to drop out of the trial altogether. What work are the Government doing to stop this tactic, and ensure that victims like my constituent see the justice that they deserve?
The Solicitor General
I commend the bravery and courage of my hon. Friend’s constituent in coming forward, and I am very sorry to hear about the additional trauma that they have faced waiting for justice to be served. As well as tackling the backlog to reduce delays, this Government are committed to supporting victims. In April, I announced an additional £5 million of Treasury funding to offer domestic abuse victims in Crown court cases a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution team. These crucial meetings will support victims in the lead-up to their trial. A similar service is already offered to victims of rape and serious sexual assault, and I am pleased that we are now able to pilot that for victims of domestic abuse in three CPS areas.
Catherine Fookes
I spoke recently, at a surgery, to one of my Monmouthshire constituents who had served on a jury in a case in which the victim had been subject to domestic violence. I was horrified to hear that there were only two women on a jury of 12, and that my constituent had heard other jurors victim blaming and making judgmental comments about the victim’s appearance. They were concerned that prejudices may have impacted the outcome of the trial. Of course, I understand that jurors are picked at random, but in cases of violence against women, what more can we do to change the system, so that survivors get the justice they deserve and are treated fairly?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for everything that she has done on this important issue. The Government’s landmark strategy to halve violence against women and girls starts with prevention, by focusing on the root causes and designing interventions to tackle outdated societal attitudes. We are investing a record £20 million in education to address harmful attitudes and behaviours head-on, so that young people are taught to identify positive role models, and to challenge unhealthy myths about women and relationships. In trials by jury, the judge gives directions that each juror must evaluate the evidence before them dispassionately, putting aside any bias towards the victim.
Liz Twist
It is absolutely vital that victims are at the heart of our justice system. My Blaydon and Consett constituents know that for too long, the system has not been working for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. What impact does the Solicitor General believe that the early victims’ right to review will have for victims?
The Solicitor General
I start by paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of Jade Blue. Jade was a victim of rape, but the CPS wrongly dropped her case just 13 days before trial. Ever since, she has campaigned for change. The early victims’ right to review gives rape victims the chance for their case to be reviewed before the CPS makes a final decision. If that had been in place for Jade Blue, her case would have continued, and in the pilot, cases that would previously have been stopped have carried on. I am determined that we will put victims at the heart of our justice system. Because of that, we are rolling out this scheme nationwide.
Andrew George
The fact that so many colleagues have raised these questions again today is a clear indication of how serious the issue of low and slow prosecution rates is. If the primary purpose of custodial sentences is public protection, does the Minister understand why victims in my constituency clearly feel discouraged, having witnessed violent offenders being given very short custodial sentences, or being granted early parole in spite of the danger that they represent to society?
The Solicitor General
Tackling violence against women and girls is my No. 1 priority as Solicitor General. I oversee the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and where a sentence is clearly unduly lenient, I can refer the case to the Court of Appeal for review. Members of the public, and victims and their family members, can all refer cases to the scheme. It is an important way of ensuring transparency in our system, and that there is an ability to challenge, where things go wrong.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I work with a wonderful charity in Bath called Voices, which supports women through their trauma, and helps them to cope with a complex and often unsympathetic court system. What are the Government doing to make it easier for survivors of abuse to cope with a system that often seems to add insult to injury?
The Solicitor General
I commend Voices in Bath and its important support for women. The CPS has introduced an enhanced service for victims of rape and serious sexual abuse. Victims now have a dedicated victim liaison officer, who they can contact throughout their case, and they are offered a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution. Following the success of that scheme, it is being trialled for victims of domestic abuse, and I have secured £5 million of funding to pilot a scheme in which victims of domestic abuse whose cases are in the Crown court are also offered that pre-trial meeting. We are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to supporting victims.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Too many abusers escape justice in court, leaving victims, including my constituents, without proper justice. In May, I called for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers in the family court process. In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), said:
“It cannot be warm words; there needs to be action.”——[Official Report, 21 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 37WH.]
What steps have the Government taken to make independent domestic advisers mandatory in family courts, to help deliver justice?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing the role of independent domestic abuse advisers. They do incredibly important work. I will ensure that his question and comments about the specifics of the family courts are passed to a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, so that he receives a full response.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am relieved that, ahead of the summer recess, the Government have not brought back to the House their controversial proposals to curtail jury trials, which I opposed on Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Also included in that Bill were crucial measures to repeal the presumption of child contact in family court cases, after years of campaigning by Women’s Aid, Claire Throssell and others. Some reports suggest that the jury trial proposals have now been shelved, but will the Solicitor General confirm that the Government will still deliver the commitment to abolish the presumption of contact, perhaps through alternative legal means?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important and powerful point, and I commend her on all her work to tackle violence against women and girls, and on the courage that she has shown. The presumption of contact changes are incredibly important, and will progress in the usual way, as the Bill goes through Parliament.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is well recognised that people who inflict deliberate pain, injury or violence on animals are more likely to be involved in domestic abuse, yet if someone is prosecuted for deliberately injuring an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws, meaning that their conviction is unlikely to show up under the domestic abuse disclosure scheme. Will the Minister look at how we can change the recording of such offences, so that people who deliberately harm animals are likely to be reported as being at risk of committing domestic abuse against people?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point: some research has shown a correlation between someone abusing their pet and domestic abuse. That is touched on in the cross-Government VAWG strategy. It is important that vets are aware of that research and that link, and can detect those issues and signpost and escalate when necessary.
Mr Speaker
That completes questions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members might be disappointed, but it is not my fault—it was the length of the questions. We allowed almost 30 minutes instead of the allocated 20 minutes, so I ask Members please to look to colleagues who asked the longest questions.
Iran Conflict: Ceasefire
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on Iran’s violation of the ceasefire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We strongly condemn the outrageous Iranian attacks on the territory or vessels of our Gulf partners Bahrain, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a serious escalation. Strikes into countries in the region and their waters are a clear violation of international law and must stop. I have been in touch with my counterparts from all the mentioned countries to express our solidarity and condemn these attacks.
Iran’s attacks on civilian vessels were in Omani waters. The UK stands with Oman, with its sovereignty over its own territorial waters, and for the principle and the law of freedom of navigation both in the strait and across the world. We stand with our partners in calling for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. We want a durable, negotiated peace and the strait of Hormuz to fully reopen.
The dangerous re-escalation over the past few days and continued attacks hurt everybody. The greatest impact is, of course, felt by the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our priority now is ensuring unimpeded transit passage through the strait without the threat of violence, tolls, fees or conditions. The ceasefire must deliver predictable access rather than ad hoc, case-by-case transits. We will continue to stand up for international law as reflected in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, freedom of navigation, global navigational rights, seafarer safety and the consistent application of existing rules.
Priti Patel
The terrorist regime in Tehran has once again violated the ceasefire, illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and striking our allies in the region, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These new assaults in the strait on at least three tankers were the most in a single day since April, according to the UN International Maritime Organisation. Earlier this week, the Iranians said they targeted Salman port in Bahrain, where Britain and the US operate naval bases.
What were the Government doing when British assets were in danger and our friends and security allies were being attacked by Iran? What exactly are the Government doing to help protect the thousands of British nationals in the region who once again find themselves under rocket fire from Iran? Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words.
I have asked again and again what are the British Government doing, or what have they done to date, through the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement to support Bahrain? The NATO Secretary-General said that the strikes by the US were “absolutely necessary”—do the Government agree?
We have had little of substance from the Government in recent days, other than the Foreign Secretary’s telly remarks when she said yesterday that she was “very concerned” by the Iranian strikes. The US Administration have announced that they are reimposing oil sanctions on Iran—of course, oil funds its terrorism. When will the Government stop the UK’s financial system being used to launder Iranian terrorist funds? What is the Government’s assessment about whether the ceasefire framework and the 60-day period in the agreement remain?
Let us be honest: the fact that Iran continues to breach the ceasefire and threatens our interests on a daily basis demonstrates that the Government have failed to have a clear plan to get defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade, leaving our country exposed and our security at risk. While Ministers are putting their job security ahead of the defence and the interests of this country, this discredited Labour Government have failed to offer solutions to the most serious and significant conflict that the world has seen in decades or to be part of any negotiations. Britain has a huge stake in the future of the middle east, but under Labour our interests have been neglected and our standing in the world has fallen.
Mr Falconer
I do not quite know what to say to that. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary will know—she can look me in the eye—that it is unlikely to be the debates around the defence investment plan that led to strikes in Iran and the Gulf over the past few days. I am here to talk about serious questions of war and peace, and I hope we can avoid party politics in doing so.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Minister’s condemnation of Iran’s attacks on its neighbours? Does he agree that at least part of the problem in the fragility of the deal is its very ambiguity? It is a deal that was negotiated in haste, at a distance and through third parties, and it inevitably does not reflect agreement, but rather fudges some of the deep differences between the parties. Does he agree that we need a sustainable deal that is thoroughly negotiated, has more detail and includes recognition that, inevitably, concessions are needed on both sides?
Mr Falconer
As a former negotiator, I am reluctant to criticise fudges and creative language as negotiators must often reach for them. However, there are many areas that cannot be fudged and where there is no ambiguity, for example the location of Oman’s territorial waters and the rights that flow from that. The strikes conducted by Iran this week were not only against land targets, but against commercial shipping. There was no ambiguity whatsoever about the location of those vessels: Oman’s waters and its rights under UNCLOS. These are not questions that were at the negotiating table in relation to the memorandum of understanding. We will continue to stand for them, here and in every place.
Mr Speaker
It would be helpful if the Minister turned to me now and again during his answers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Iran is continuing to hold the global economy to ransom through its reckless strikes in the strait of Hormuz—we all agree on that. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s continuing tit-for-tat retaliations risk dragging the whole region back into a full-blown conflict. This would threaten the lives of citizens across the middle east, while heaping even more economic harm on millions of British people already struggling with the spiralling cost of living. Donald Trump has claimed that the war has been a huge success, but in reality it has been a costly humiliation for the President. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Department is taking to get both sides back to the negotiating table? Are we working with our reliable allies to secure a diplomatic resolution?
Will the Minister also update the House on the status and health of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who are still imprisoned in Iran? Will the Minister recognise their detention as arbitrary and will he refer the case to the International Court of Justice? Will the Minister confirm that after the National Security (State Threats) Bill was passed yesterday, the Government will move immediately to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the exporter of Iranian terror?
Mr Falconer
I will not get ahead of the process laid out in the legislation that was passed last night, but it is clearly an important step forward in providing the British Government and Britain as a whole with another weapon in our armoury to tackle hostile state threats.
I have not had the opportunity to update the House since I summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires on Monday, so I am pleased to do so. We will have all seen the judgment handed down in the case on Friday related to Iranian threats in this country against journalists. I reiterated in the strongest possible terms to the Iranian representatives the strength of feeling among Members of the House and people across the country, and the fact that we are taking concrete steps, including the ones the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in order to ensure that no agent of the Iranian regime can commit violence in this country.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very much focused on the case of the Foremans in Iran, but for reasons of sensitivity I do not wish to be drawn further into the case at this moment.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
We are still waiting to learn the full extent of British military involvement in this conflict. The Minister must confirm whether the UK’s authorisation for the US to use British airbases continued as the ceasefire has collapsed. With 170 US airstrikes on Iran over the past two days, is the UK undertaking case-by-case authorisation for each individual strike?
Secondly, I have asked numerous times about the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement, and I have not received a straight answer. With credible evidence of crimes against humanity in Gaza, the Minister has not yet replied to my letter from over a month ago asking whether an international law review of that agreement has been conducted. Can the Minister outline when I can expect a response?
Mr Falconer
I am sorry I have not replied to the correspondence yet; I will do so as quickly as I can. In relation to the question about military support, I want to be clear: the UK stands with our Gulf allies in a defensive capacity. As the shadow Foreign Secretary alluded to, we do provide capability to our friends and partners in the Gulf to protect themselves against these attacks. We do also continue to provide permissions to the United States to use our airbases, where they are taking defensive action on behalf of our partners and allies. Those arrangements have been discussed by the relevant Ministers from the Ministry of Defence on a number of occasions, and they remain in place.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I ask this question in all sincerity. Throughout this conflict, the Government have pleaded for de-escalation, but if Iran is gratuitously escalating, should we not give unambiguous support to the Americans for retaliating? Who else is going to retaliate against gratuitous escalation by Iran if it is not the Americans? Rather than hedging our bets, can we not give more unambiguous support—if not military support, then political support—for the United States’ efforts to resolve this conflict? It has already given so much ground in the negotiations. We cannot complain that it has not tried to be as reasonable as it possibly can.
Mr Falconer
I have sought in all my remarks to remain grounded in the relevant principles of international law. It is absolutely clear that the strikes Iran has conducted this week in Omani waters or on the territory of our friends and partners are a breach of international law. That then provides, under the relevant framework, options for response. We are not party to that response, but we are party to seeking to shoot down these attacks when they threaten our friends and partners. I do not want to enter into an emotional discussion of these questions. We are absolutely clear that what is happening in the strait of Hormuz and the wider region is a threat to international law, which this Chamber and this country hold dear, and it must be upheld.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that among the geopolitical military strategy and the diplomatic negotiations surrounding the conflict, we must not lose sight of the millions of innocent civilians across the region who are trapped in the middle of violence, displaced from their homes, hungry and without access to healthcare, while grieving loved ones and living without safety and security? Will he set out what steps the Government are taking to press all parties to uphold international humanitarian law, to protect civilians from acute hunger and allow them access to basic healthcare?
Mr Falconer
As I alluded to earlier, the impact on the cost of living in this country from the events in the strait of Hormuz is obvious and pronounced, but it is even more acute across the region—for example, in Yemen, where people already face severe and acute malnutrition. The economic pressure caused by these continued closures will plunge some of the most vulnerable people in the world even deeper into hunger and poverty, and we are raising that point in all our engagements.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The flagrant breaches of the ceasefire that have taken place clearly demonstrate that Iran has no interest in anything other than dominating the region. The Minister may call in the chargé d’affaires, and he may call for action, but we want to see some action from the UK Government. Will he undertake to expel those people who are involved in action in the UK that threatens Iranian citizens living in the UK who are not part of this regime? Will he take action to ensure that the so-called foreign diplomats in the Iranian embassy are kicked out, to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate this?
Mr Falconer
It is important that we maintain relations with the regime in Tehran. It is important, for many of the reasons that have been alluded to this morning, that we continue to make our point of view understood forcefully and directly to Iranian representatives.
The hon. Gentleman asks about concrete steps. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), alluded to one that was voted through just last night—one that was not put in place over the period of the previous Government. We are taking the steps required to ensure that Britain has the armoury necessary to take action against state threats, including those that emanate from Iran, as we heard from the judge in the case on Friday.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) has alluded to Craig and Lindsay Foreman, who are still imprisoned in Tehran. Craig Foreman is on day 61 of his hunger strike, and Lindsay Foreman is on day 50 of her hunger strike. They clearly need to be released immediately and returned to the UK. I understand that the Minister said he did not want to be drawn on this matter, but will he tell me why the Government will not publicly and officially declare the imprisonment to be arbitrary? Why will they not provide Craig and Lindsay Foreman with diplomatic protection, work closely with allies to get them released and bring their case before the International Court of Justice?
Mr Falconer
The reason I am not often keen to be drawn in this Chamber on specific cases is that I have to make a judgment, as the whole Government do, about what we can do in the best interests of British nationals detained overseas. The hon. Lady references arbitrary detention—a concept that does not exist in UK law. She also mentions the ICJ—I think she is referring to a previous case, which was withdrawn—and the view held by some that that would be a helpful thing to do in other cases.
Unfortunately, the responsibilities that fall to me mean that I need to be careful publicly what I say about particular cases, particularly when they are about two named individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the Iranians. All the responsibilities for the welfare of Craig and Lindsay Foreman fall, for now, on the authorities in Tehran. Until they are released, which they should be immediately, Iran must take full care of our nationals under its control.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s attacks in the region, but at some point very soon the UK will need to review its own defensive posture vis-à-vis UK armed forces responses in the region. Iran’s nuclear programme is diminished, not destroyed. Its ballistic missile programme is diminished, not destroyed. The Iranian regime is diminished, not destroyed. Meanwhile, the Iranian people continue to suffer—many of them have been executed in the last few days—and so do our friends and allies in the region, as we have seen over the last few hours. My constituents in Shropshire also continue to suffer, because of higher fuel prices.
The United States has been around for 250 years; Iran—Persia—has been around for 2,500 years. Given that President Trump is supposed to be the great dealmaker, does the Minister agree that the Iranians are perhaps a little better at doing deals—or at not doing deals—than President Trump first thought when he set out on this adventure? Does the Minister also agree that it is perhaps time for the United Nations to get more involved?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to comment on the role that the United Nations has played in recent weeks, particularly the role of the IMO. We support the IMO’s efforts, because there are many seafarers whose welfare depends on being able to get out of the strait of Hormuz safely. We have been in regular contact with the IMO, and we support its efforts; it is absolutely vital that it can make them. For diplomatic reasons, I will decline to comment on age versus youth as a superior skill in diplomacy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am glad that the Minister made that point. May I welcome his acknowledgment and recognition of the implications for domestic industry of what is happening in the Gulf, especially for our food producers and food price inflation? The Minister’s Department has an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge. Will he give me some assurance that that expertise and knowledge is being deployed across Government so that we can mitigate the worst effects on our domestic economy, especially in relation to giving early warning of what is going on?
Mr Falconer
That is a very important question. I was involved in foreign affairs before I came to this House, and I recognise that, perhaps more so than in practically any period in recent history, foreign affairs determines the cost of living for every one of our constituents, and sets the circumstances in which every business in every constituency is now operating. The Foreign Office is seeking to play its full role across Government in helping British businesses and Britons to navigate what are difficult times.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Minister and I have a shared interest in Yemen, and I am sure he will welcome the fact that next week, the International Development Committee is holding a focused inquiry into the current situation in Yemen, particularly the issue of malnutrition. More generally, can the Minister give us confidence that contingency plans are in place for communication with British citizens in the Gulf if the situation escalates further?
Mr Falconer
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s focus on Yemen. I reassure the House that I do remain focused on Yemen, as do other Ministers—it is vital that we see the release of the detained humanitarian workers, access to humanitarian supplies for the Yemenis, and peace and security for a country that is much benighted. I can also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we do have contingency plans in place, and I encourage Members of this House to encourage their constituents to look at travel advice. We have relaxed the travel advice in recent weeks, particularly in the Gulf region. We do our best to make sure our advice is as up to date as possible, and people should look at it before they travel. We try not to be over-cautious; we will do all the contingency planning we can, but British nationals also have a responsibility to take sensible precautions.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Iran’s attack on commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz is clearly a flagrant breach of international law, and incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. The escalating US response is also extremely dangerous, and it is not just tit for tat—it is a disproportionate escalation. Let us not forget that this war was started by the US and Israel choosing to launch attacks on Iran on 28 February. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to maximise pressure on both parties to come back to the negotiating table—through sanctions and so forth, on Iran and on the US—to pull them back from the brink of this incredibly dangerous moment of escalation?
Mr Falconer
As I hope was clear in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, there are international principles in play here that go beyond simply Iran, the United States, or even the region—principles of the freedom of navigation and the global commons. That is why I sought to focus so much on those issues in my response. The hon. Lady asks what we are doing to ensure that the talks succeed. We are in close contact with all involved, which includes making points directly and forcefully to Tehran and, of course, talking to our friends in Washington. We want diplomacy to succeed, but we also must see those international principles—those linchpins of international law—sustained and maintained, both in the strait of Hormuz and globally.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The ongoing conflict puts our own energy security at risk, so can the Minister assure us that our energy supply routes are safe and there is no risk of blackouts this winter?
Mr Falconer
I am sure a Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will give the hon. Gentleman such an assurance—I do not think there is any concern in that area—but let me be direct. We get a lot of energy via the strait of Hormuz. The strait of Hormuz is clearly not open, so if the hon. Gentleman is asking me, “What do the supply chains for British energy look like?”, the answer is that they look like global energy supply chains: under very considerable pressure, and under more pressure because of what Iran has done this week.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Could I take the Minister back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum)? How many US flights have recently taken off from the UK to bomb Iran? When decisions on granting permission for those flights to take place are made, is the Minister consulted on the target and purpose of them, and is he really satisfied that anyone in Iran thinks these are anything other than aggressive attacks on the people of Iran?
This is an awful situation—it is very, very dangerous in many, many ways. Is it not time to try to bring the good offices of Pakistan back in, to try to arrange a further ceasefire and a long-term, peaceful arrangement to stop this conflict in the strait of Hormuz, which is so dangerous?
Mr Falconer
The arrangements that govern UK-US military co-operation and the use of our bases have been set out in some detail by Defence Ministers. They remain in place and they include provisions that the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed on the Floor of the House a number of times before. I agree with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that we want to get back to a ceasefire. Pakistan has played a vital role, as have Qatar and other mediators. I have been in regular contact with mediators from a range of countries, and I was glad to discuss these issues during my recent visit to Islamabad.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Iranian regime is abhorrent. It has oppressed its people for decades, murdering protesters and activists, and it is no friend of ours. Its attacks on civilian shipping risk a global crisis, yet Donald Trump’s escalation and the US’s poorly targeted attacks have put civilians and our friends in the Gulf at huge risk, with the risk of a large-scale regional conflict. Will the Minister assure us that the FCDO keeps plans for the evacuation of British nationals in the region under review, in case they should be required?
Mr Falconer
I reassure the House that the Foreign Office keeps contingency plans for the region under close review. We were incredibly grateful for the co-operation of our partners and, indeed, the support of British nationals themselves in the very speedy departure from the Gulf during the outbreak of this conflict. It is clear that should there be any difficulty—although there is no suggestion that there is—in the region for travelling British nationals, we will need the co-operation of British nationals and those in the region. It is very unlikely, and it is quite a distant prospect, that a further evacuation will be required.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. His words are always well chosen, and I think he encapsulates the energy and opinion of this House. The IRGC continues to wage war against humanity, executing prisoners, ruthlessly spying on dissidents on British soil and orchestrating severe targeted persecution against religious minorities, including our Christian brothers and sisters in Iran. The IRGC also continues to block the strait of Hormuz and attack peaceful neighbours. What discussions have the Minister and the Government had with our NATO and USA allies to collectively respond and show Iran that its continued state-sponsored terrorism will no longer be tolerated?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the threats that the IRGC has posed in the region and internationally. As I said in an earlier answer, domestic measures are being introduced in relation to state threats, and I imagine that we will have more to say about the employment of that new tool shortly. On the international position, we have made a series of interventions, both internationally and in the region, to try to reduce Iran’s malign role in the region. We have spent most of this urgent question discussing what is happening in the strait of Hormuz, but there are clearly Iranian militias right across the region continuing to threaten civilians, stability and the security of the region.
Mr Speaker
Before we start business questions, I would like to thank David Weir, the Clerk at the Table today, who is retiring from the House after 32 years, working first in Hansard and then as a Clerk. I wish David all the best. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He is a man of many talents—he is a writer, a playwright, a director and a producer. The strings of his bow will be played elsewhere, rather than at the Table. I say to David, thank you for all that you have done.
Business of the House
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your gracious words, and I echo your thoughts and thanks to David Weir for all his service.
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 13 July will include:
Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day, third allotted day. Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to national security.
Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.
Jesse Norman
What a sporting week this has been! Youth, vitality, incredible physical stamina in the most testing of environments—and that is just the Leader of the House, whose birthday it was yesterday. He has never begrudged me my own naivety and inexperience, and I know that everyone present will join me in wishing him a massively happy birthday. In other news, the England football team decisively defeated Mexico at the Azteca, and we look forward with keen anticipation to their taking on Norway on Saturday evening.
We send our congratulations and commiserations to the United States of America on the tragic wrong turn it took towards independence 250 years ago. Edmund Burke famously said:
“In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature”.
Whatever temporary disagreements we may have, let us never forget this deepest of shared commitments.
Kim Jong Un himself would admire the North Korean precision of the Labour leadership vote, which has opened today, with precisely one candidate on the ballot paper. How very different from the forthcoming by-election in Clacton, which appears to be a choice between a novelty comedy act with no real policies, and Count Binface. It is a long time since we had a count in the House of Commons, and when the time comes—as it surely will—we will have to leave to you, Mr Speaker, the delicate question of whether and how to suspend the rules on headgear in the Chamber for the new Member.
On a more serious note, the House has already expressed its great sorrow at the recent death of Sir George Howarth. I would also like to draw attention to the very sad death on Monday of James Mackay, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at the age of 99. He was a brave, energetic and imaginative reformer of the law as Lord Advocate in Scotland, and then as Lord Chancellor. It is hard to think of a man more widely respected in public life. We send our very best to his wife Bett and their family.
I have just one item of business today. It is related to the River Wye, which the House will know is not only a particular obsession of mine, but an issue of national importance. When the last Government cancelled the action plan for the Wye, it also cancelled the accompanying commitment to £35 million in clean-up funding, and replaced it with a paltry £1 million, supposedly aimed at research.
I was very distressed to receive the news this week that only £115,000 of that £1 million will actually be spent on research, that even that tiny sum will be spent over three years, and that the balance of the £l million will be consumed by administrative costs. Will the Leader of the House instigate an immediate inquiry and ensure that Ministers clarify to me, my constituents and national campaigners on this issue that the full £1 million will be kept intact and used for the purposes for which it was intended?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank that shadow Leader of the House for his remarks, and particularly for wishing me a happy birthday for yesterday. I advise him and other hon. Members as they approach my age that, generally, the more birthdays you have, the less you have to celebrate—but there we are. I thank him for his kind remarks.
I also join you, Mr Speaker, and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking David Weir for his service to the House over 32 years. I look forward to the play or book based on his experiences in this House.
The shadow Leader of the House mentioned that the Labour leadership contest has started. I am afraid that he has misread the rules, because it is the opening of nominations today. It is therefore presumptive to say there will be only one candidate, because it rather depends on how the next few days play out.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is simply a statement of fact, not a statement of anything else. [Laughter.]
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his kind tribute to Sir George Howarth, who passed away recently. George was a dedicated politician who served his constituency of Knowsley for 38 years, and I am sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to his wife, Julie, and to his family and friends at this sad time. I also echo his words about the death of Lord Mackay.
I am very sad to learn today of the death of Bonnie Tyler. This matter was raised with me at business questions recently, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for giving us the opportunity to wish her well at that point. I am sure her family and friends are devastated by her loss, and we send them our very best wishes, indeed.
This year marks 21 years since the London 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 people and injured many more. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with those whose lives were changed on that terrible day, and that they will recall the bravery and commitment of our emergency services, particularly the NHS, which continues to show such exemplary service.
Since our last business questions, we have celebrated the second anniversary of the election of this Labour Government. The election saw a huge intake of new and talented MPs on both sides of this House, and we thank them for the contribution they have made thus far. Since that election, we have taken action as a Government to fix the foundations of our country and deliver the long-term change that Britain needs. That means cutting waiting lists, cutting net migration and the asylum backlog, lifting half a million children out of poverty and having the fastest growing economy in the G7.
In reference to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, we are changing the balance of power in Britain through the Hillsborough law, ensuring that the state can never hide from the people it is supposed to serve. As he outlined yesterday, significant progress has been made, and I hope we can bring the Bill back to the House soon.
Turning to other matters, the veterinary sector has been raised with me during these sessions on a number of occasions. Pets are part of the family, but for too many households the cost of caring for them has become a real worry. Today, we are setting out the biggest reforms to the vet sector in half a century to help owners avoid unexpected bills, compare prices more easily and get the best value from pet care. I know you take a keen interest in this, Mr Speaker.
On the Wye valley, I will raise this matter with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. However, I understand that the matter was raised at DEFRA questions earlier today, although I have not seen the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy).
The shadow Leader of the House also raised the Clacton by-election. Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that this by-election should not be taking place. When we stand for election to this place, which it is an honour to do, we give an undertaking that the highest standards should be kept, including of openness and transparency about political donations. That is the issue here, and that will be the issue in this unnecessary by-election. Nigel Farage has serious questions to answer, and he cannot run away from them.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I add my birthday wishes to the Leader of the House.
I recently had the absolute pleasure of attending not one but two wonderful theatre performances. The first was a dress rehearsal by StagedRight theatre group and the second was “Aladdin” by the Rocket theatre group. These wonderful theatre groups give our young people the opportunity to build skills, grow confidence and have a fantastic time. Could the Leader of the House advise how we can best celebrate the contribution that theatre groups such as these right across our country make to our communities, particularly for our young people?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House. She will know, from an earlier confession, that I am indeed a fan of musical theatre. Amateur and youth productions truly are a great vehicle to build confidence, harness creativity and build communities, so I congratulate all those involved in treading the boards this summer. This is a topic of interest across the House, so I recommend that she looks towards a Westminster Hall debate, perhaps when we return, or towards the pre-recess Adjournment debate next week.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and the remarks by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House of both congratulations and condolences.
On the business the Leader of the House has announced, I have to say that I am very disappointed that it means the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) about the Hillsborough Bill were not accurate. I hope we will see it return after the summer recess.
On the world cup, all I will say is that, like fellow Scots, I am probably looking for my Viking helmet at the moment.
We all know that the former Member for Clacton’s resignation is nothing but a stunt designed to distract the country from the raft of allegations facing him and, it increasingly appears, his colleagues. Such allegations must be fully investigated, so that voters have all the facts about the candidates they are voting for, whether they be a bin or a politician who sees being a Member of Parliament as a part-time job.
Now that the writ has been moved, does the Leader of the House share my regret that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigation into the former Member for Clacton must pause? Does he agree that, in circumstances where the nature of an allegation is sufficiently serious, there is merit to it continuing, even if the Member is no longer an MP? Does he agree that it could and should continue regardless? Obviously, those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish Count Binface well.
It was interesting to read overnight that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has plans for changing the culture and narrative of the Labour party. I am sure those on the Government Benches are looking forward to that new-found freedom. But for all the talk of collaboration and modernisation, we still do not know anything about the legislation that the new Labour Government are planning to bring to the House. We know more about the right hon. Member’s love of guitar and rugby league than we do about his plans for fixing the problems facing the country. The Liberal Democrats would welcome detail on his plans to fix social care, tackle the special educational needs and disabilities crisis and support the small businesses bearing the brunt of the Government’s jobs taxes. Will the Leader of the House commit to doubling the length of Prime Minister’s questions next week, and give the Prime Minister-in-waiting the opportunity to answer questions and outline his views on the issues that really matter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I just gently say to the hon. Lady that I sat on the Government Front Bench yesterday and I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister did say something that was inaccurate. As I said in my opening remarks, we are doing all we can to get the Hillsborough Bill across the line. If that means we can bring it sooner rather than later, then that will be our intention.
I agree absolutely with the hon. Lady, and I stand by what I said to the shadow Leader of the House, about this unnecessary by-election. There are serious questions to answer and Nigel Farage cannot run away from those questions. She is right to talk about the standards investigation, but the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigation is independent of the Government and the House, and it is important—I want to emphasise this—that all Members of the House respect the standards and procedures of the House. Members should not interfere with live investigations or do anything to prejudice them. She talks about what happens if a Member is no longer a Member and an investigation has begun. The procedural protocol in respect of the code of conduct sets out what happens to an ongoing commissioner inquiry if a Member ceases to be a Member of the House. That is what I would expect to happen in this instance.
The hon. Lady talks about what the manifesto will be of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) if he is successful in becoming the Prime Minister. Let me just say this: there is a Labour Government with a legislative programme that we have set out. There will be continuity of that Labour Government. Even if the Administration changes, this will remain a Labour Government. I would expect that to be the case. As for PMQs being extended next week, by any stretch of the imagination I cannot see a situation where my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield will be Prime Minister by the time of next Wednesday.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Today we are launching our petition to save Scout Dike activity centre in my constituency with fantastic local campaigners Darren Padgett and Nick Stubbs. We are campaigning against Barnsley council’s plans to sell off this valuable community asset for development. Scout Dike activity centre has served local people for generations and offers an incredible outdoor space—including a Quidditch pitch—for young people to gain life skills, confidence and access to wildlife in the heart of our beautiful South Yorkshire countryside. Selling it off snuffs out these opportunities forever. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to reopen the centre to benefit the next generation of young people?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the work of local campaigners such as Darren and Nick. We absolutely recognise the importance of such sites and are empowering local people through the new community right to buy, but also through our Pride in Place programme. I will ask the Secretary of State to write to my hon. Friend on this important matter and to give her the information she needs to take forward her campaign.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Of course, we do not know whether the Leader of the House will become Prime Minister in a few days’ time, but we do know that either he will continue in his current role or someone will replace him. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I ask that we get early warning of what time we will receive when we return after the summer recess. The Leader of the House has suggested that our Committee will get a slot on the day we return. If that does happen, we already have potential offers out to bidders for both the Tuesday and the Thursday.
I turn to the business in Westminster Hall. Next week, on Tuesday 14 July, we will have a debate on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities. On Thursday 16 July there will be a debate on the impact of the national policy planning policy framework changes, followed by a debate on capital funding for Changing Places toilets. On Tuesday 1 September, when we return from recess, we will have a debate on the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. On Thursday 3 September there will be a debate on vaccination rates in England, followed by a further debate, the subject of which is yet to be confirmed. On Tuesday 8 September there will be a debate on the safety of the Jewish community. On Thursday 10 September there will be a debate on reform of the vascular sector, followed by a debate on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society. Finally, on Tuesday 15 September we will have a debate on building safety remediation of residential buildings. As you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are getting on with the job of allocating the time that we have available to us.
The Leader of the House will probably be aware, there is currently a scandal around local authority social rented properties and housing association properties being let on Airbnb. I have been a strong campaigner for more social housing to be built in this country, but it is clearly important that the people who have the tenancies actually live in those properties and use them. If tenants do not use them, they should be vacated and used for people on the waiting list who desperately need them. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to make a statement in the House next week on what the Government will do to expose this scandal and ensure that the tenants who are supposed to be in these properties actually live there? If they are not living there, the properties should be released for those who desperately need them.
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and for the work of his Committee. He raises the question of what business will be like when we return in September. I expect to announce the business in the normal way at business questions next Thursday. The House knows my view on scheduling business on the first day back, and it has not changed: we need to be cautious about putting on a lot of business on that day, because invariably there are many important things on which to report back after such a long recess.
The hon. Gentleman has a strong record of raising social housing matters. As we announced yesterday, people who illegally sublet social housing will be identified and may be removed from their property, following a new data-sharing partnership between the Cabinet Office and Airbnb. By working with Airbnb, we are sending a clear message to those cheating the social housing system that they will be prosecuted. Social rented homes exist to help people who genuinely need them, not to line the pockets of fraudsters. We are calling on short-term letting platforms and councils to follow our lead, and I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister and see if we can get an update from him.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Later this month, Holmfirth Pride will take place in my constituency. I welcome the strong support shown by the many local businesses that are sponsoring events, such as a pink picnic in the park. Events such as those help foster respect and acceptance in our communities, and counter the hate and division that we too often see. Will the Leader of the House reaffirm this Government’s commitment to inclusive communities and the huge benefits that diversity brings to our society?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the support of local businesses for Holmfirth Pride. My hon. Friend has been a champion on issues of inclusion and countering hate in our communities, and I pay tribute to him for that. This Government will continue to stand with LGBTQ+ people in this country and around the world.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Leader of the House did not mention in the forthcoming business that the House is about to be asked to decide on whether to issue a writ for a farcical and unnecessary by-election. [Interruption.] Have we had it already? I beg your pardon; I was not in the Chamber. What opportunity do I have to raise the question of how the by-election should be paid for? Many of my constituents live in the tendering district and will be inflicted with the cost of the by-election. It seems most unfair that this political stunt should cost council tax payers in my constituency or in Clacton.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, as well as residents of Clacton, will also be concerned about the cost of this unnecessary by-election. I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide to cast their vote. It has been suggested that individuals might come forward and pay the cost of the by-election, which is ludicrous—that simply cannot happen. It is an unnecessary by-election and a waste of money, and I hope that people will think about that when it comes to casting their votes.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
On Armed Forces Day a few weeks ago, our community came out not just to celebrate our armed forces personnel, but to support Ben Hardy. Ben, who is 11 years old, has had 10 operations on his eyes and is severely visually impaired, but that did not stop him putting on an outstanding sensory exhibition, bringing Dunkirk spirit to life for local people through sight, sound, smell and taste. Will the Leader of the House, and indeed the whole House, join me in congratulating Ben and thanking him for his outstanding contribution to our celebrations and all his hard work?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Ben and his mother Liz on their hard work raising awareness for the Royal British Legion and Moorfields eye hospital. Such events demonstrate the importance of communities coming together to highlight and celebrate the work of our armed forces, and that depends on remarkable individuals like Ben.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I associate myself with the tributes to Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He was a giant of the Scottish legal profession, Lord Chancellor in two Governments, and a strong voice for Scotland and the Union in the other place. I benefited immensely from his wise counsel during my time in the Scotland Office. My thoughts are with his wife and family at this time.
The Leader of the House will be aware that in the Government’s recent Green Paper it was suggested that terrestrial television—free-to-view television—might be switched off in 2034. That would be a hugely detrimental move for many people across the UK, particularly elderly people and people living in rural areas who do not have the best internet access. It would mean that everybody would have to pay for the internet in order to receive television services. Will he have a word with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as he takes office, and ensure that his Administration rule out that possibility?
Sir Alan Campbell
There will be no immediate changes to how people watch TV; terrestrial TV will stay until at least 2034. However, as the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, TV is increasingly moving online. We recognise the particular challenges in remote and rural areas, particularly for older people, people with disabilities and others who might spend more time watching TV. I want to emphasise that we want to ensure that the transition is managed responsibly and that no one is left behind, which is why we are consulting on two dates for the switchover, with either date contingent on a full and watertight transition plan. I will ensure that Ministers hear of his concerns.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of watching England versus DR Congo with some of the good folks at the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Thankfully, the England men’s team have not taken the title of the campaign too literally, and are still on the hunt to bring at least one trophy home this summer. There should be only one trophy, though, because this party has pledged to end the import of trophies acquired through hunting. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister to update us on progress in this area, so that we can finally end this barbaric practice?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this important issue—I know that he joined campaigners in taking the campaign to No. 10 last year. As he will know, the Government remain committed to banning the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure that we can implement a robust ban. I am not sure whether this matter was raised at DEFRA questions this morning, but I will certainly ensure that Ministers hear of his concerns.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Earlier in this Parliament I raised the potential of Russia returning to Eurovision. Last week I raised the issue of a Russian animated children’s cartoon on British TV. This week we have heard that the International Olympic Committee is paving the way for Russia to return to the next Olympic games. We are seeing the normalisation, rehabilitation and re-emergence of the Russian state on the world stage, with little to nothing being said by this Government. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement on Russian soft power and what we can do to ensure that we hold the regime to account, while an illegal war is still being waged and abducted children have not been returned to Ukraine?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the Government are either slow or, worse, doing nothing about Russian soft power, because our support for Ukraine is unwavering and our opposition to Putin’s illegal war is absolute. We have introduced sanctions on individuals and entities as part of our Russia sanctions regime, and we are working with allies to pursue all lawful ways of ensuring that Russia pays for the damage it has caused. However, I will raise with the relevant Minister the hon. Gentleman’s concern about Russia being readmitted to things on a case-by-case basis. He is right to say that the general public may well think it is not the time for that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
We know how much land there is in the UK, and we know the extent of our inland waters and seas, so we can know how much we have to do to protect them, as we are required to do by target 3 of the global biodiversity framework. Target 2 of that framework requires us to restore 30% of degraded land, but the Government have not published the amount of degraded land or degraded ecosystems in inland waters and marine environments. How are we supposed to meet our global commitment when we do not know what we have to do?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has considerable experience and knowledge about these matters—far greater than would allow me to respond in the detail that his question requires. I am therefore going to offer him a meeting with the relevant Minister so that he can make his case. The Government will be committed to meeting those timelines and qualifications, and it is important that he makes that case to the relevant Minister.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is clear to me that the National Crime Agency has released details of my company bank statements, my individual bank transfers, and private conversations between me and my bank managers to The Guardian, which have been published. This involves multiple criminal offences, and I believe that there should be a full investigation. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be such an investigation and that if people at the National Crime Agency have committed serious criminal offences, they should face the full force of the law?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is a great deal of “if” in that matter. I find it astonishing that a party’s finances should need to be investigated by the National Crime Agency, frankly, but these are very serious matters. Individuals should have protections, and when investigations are necessary those protections should be respected. Let me take the matter away and raise it with the relevant authorities, because it is important that even the National Crime Agency and others are held to account. I have absolute faith in the National Crime Agency to get on with the important job that this House gives it.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Last week I asked a question about a new café opening in my constituency, and it has caused a bit of a kerfuffle. I cannot mention every single fantastic café in my constituency, but I am going to list a few. I have got to name Rick’s café, and I apologise profusely for not mentioning it last week—it was obviously an oversight. We also have Suzie’s Cup of Joy, Elle’s and Darracotte’s—the list goes on. The Leader of the House is very welcome to visit me in my constituency to enjoy any or all of these fine establishments. On a serious note, when will be the next opportunity to come together to discuss the very important issue of hospitality venues and the support that the Government are giving them?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend illustrates the power and influence of business questions. She is a true champion for small businesses in her constituency. As I have said on a number of occasions, small businesses are at the heart of our local communities, and we are absolutely committed to supporting them, including through our £10 million hospitality support fund. She has listed what I am sure are just a few of the fantastic cafés in her constituency. Should I find myself in Grimsby, I would be delighted to accompany her to one or more of them. She may want to raise the issue of hospitality more widely during the pre-recess Adjournment debate or in a Westminster Hall debate when we return. I am sure that if she were to raise the issue, others would join her, because Members have similar concerns across their constituencies.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I just want to make a very quick remark on this wonderful summer of sport. It is not just football that is potentially coming home—what about tennis coming home? The amazing Arthur Fery’s performance at Wimbledon was an absolute joy to watch.
Bath’s Royal United Hospital has supported promising early-stage research to improve endometriosis diagnosis. It has the potential to reduce diagnosis times and spare women from invasive surgery. Women are waiting on average nine years for a diagnosis, and research like that is crucial to helping them access support much sooner. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating this pioneering work supported by the RUH?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish everyone involved with the hospital all the very best for the future, and I thank them for the work that they are doing. It is truly pioneering work, and it is really important. The women’s health strategy sets out our renewed strategy to address the issues that women face every day. We want to ensure that no woman is left behind and has to endure long waiting times for a diagnosis. That is why we are rolling out diagnostic centres and putting more resources into the NHS. As well as thanking the hospital, I will raise its work with the relevant Minister.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that we have celebrated the Leader of the House’s birthday, may I draw his attention to the upcoming birthday of H & E Smith in my constituency? It is one of the last standing embossed and glazed tile manufacturers, and anyone who travels on the underground in this country will see many of its work on display. As it is one of the last companies standing, keeping artisan skills and abilities alive is proving difficult. May we have a debate in Government time about how we keep skills alive in such long-standing, but reducing, traditional manufacturing industries, so that there is a future and another 100 years of companies such as the one in my constituency to celebrate?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to doing everything that we can to support traditional and new businesses in what can be quite a difficult environment. My hon. Friend tempts me down the route of saying that were the House to decide at some point on renewal and restoration, I would hope that tile manufacturers, stone providers and steel manufacturers around our country would benefit from the investment that I hope we would make.
My hon. Friend raises the question of traditional skills. Such jobs are not, by and large, ones that can be replaced by AI. We should be very proud of those skills, and I thank my hon. Friend for being a champion for his constituency and for continuing to raise those skills.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
On Tuesday morning, I, along with Members across the House, attended the national parliamentary prayer breakfast, which was a very uplifting occasion. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be an opportunity to thank the churches and faith groups across the country that provide so much support in our local communities? Will he arrange a debate in Government time so we can express our thanks and identify the many people up and down the country who contribute so much?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that churches and faith groups do an incredible amount of good work in our local communities. The national prayer breakfast in Westminster Hall was a fantastic way to celebrate their contribution in Parliament. Should the hon. Gentleman wish to raise the importance of churches and faith groups in our local communities, he has an opportunity to do so on Thursday in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, or indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate when we return.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
My constituent Billy Hood, a son and father, has spent more than five years in a prison in the United Arab Emirates after being convicted of possessing trace amounts of cannabidiol vape oil. His family are deeply concerned about his welfare, the conditions of his detention and the lack of progress on the pardon process, and are disappointed by the support they have had from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Given the UK’s close relationship with the UAE, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on supporting British nationals in overseas prisons and the proactive steps that the Government can take to bring people such as Billy home?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a concerning matter. We are committed to strengthening support for British nationals overseas. I will ask the Foreign Office, in the first instance, to write to him with an update on the case—I am sorry that the family feel disappointed by the response so far. Following that, I am sure that a Foreign Office Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
This Saturday, we have the Newport agricultural show. Does the Leader of the House agree that agricultural shows are the lifeblood of many rural communities, a great showcase for the rural way of life and a great family day out? May we have a debate on the importance of agricultural shows, not only to Shropshire but to other counties as well? I also have a belated birthday present for him. If he would like to come to the Newport show—I do not know whether it will be the first time, but it may be the last—I invite him to get on and drive a tractor.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a very tempting offer. I have been to a number of country shows. I appreciate their importance for rural communities and the rural economy, given the important work that people involved in agriculture do, as well as for the wider rural communities. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of that, and again, because it is timely, I invite him to raise the matter on Thursday during the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is Muslim Climate Action Week, and mosques, youth groups and community organisations are coming together to explore environmental action through the lens of Islam, in a campaign that has been led by the charity Islamic Relief since 2024. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to all those in Poplar and Limehouse and across our country who are taking part in workshops, river clean-ups, film screenings and much more that encourages and celebrates Muslims in connecting our faith with practical environmental action?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely will, and I pay tribute to everybody involved in Muslim Climate Action Week. It is important that we take this issue seriously, not least given the period through which we are living, and I wish them well. It is important that faith groups and interfaith groups come together on what is, in many ways, the defining issue of our age.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Hospitality Together recently reported that 84% of small independent hospitality businesses across the UK said that it was either possible or very likely they would face closure in the next 12 months. A range of punishing policies has been inflicted on small, locally owned outlets, but the Government could address the situation by reducing VAT from 20% to 10%. That is exactly what my presentation Bill, the Hospitality (Value Added Tax) Bill, which is due for Second Reading next year, would do. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the issue, so that Members from all parties can make the case for reducing VAT on hospitality and so protecting jobs, encouraging growth and supporting the renewal of our high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is raising the importance of supporting hospitality now and through his Bill. The Government are committed to doing everything that we can. I gently say to him that a reduction in VAT is a costly matter, and we cannot have it both ways; he wants to reduce VAT, but that means he and others will be looking for more money for our public services.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Over the past six weeks, I have had 430 pieces of casework about uncollected bins in my constituency—I am sure that every one of those constituents can tell the former Member for Clacton how infuriating and unsuccessful it is to shout at a bin for six weeks. Does the Leader of the House agree that there is no more essential service for a council to get right than bins and waste collection? Constituents are right to expect better. At the very least, they should expect better updates and communications on what is going wrong and when it will get better.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her constituents do deserve better from their local council, and it is simply not good enough to blame teething issues or technical problems. She is right to raise the issue and stand up for her constituents. I hope that East Suffolk council, which I understand is run by the Lib Dems and Greens—how Greens can get themselves into a situation about environmental management is beyond me—has heard what she said, and gets on and resolves the matter.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Silverstone put Northamptonshire on the map this week with the best attended grand prix ever: 564,000 people visited over three days, which is amazing. The next date I want Members to put in their diaries is the Blakesley Show on 1 August. In its 141st year, it is the perfect opportunity for locals to celebrate our farming community. I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in encouraging people to come along and support our farming and agriculture.
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said in response to a previous question, I respect the importance of shows for the farming community. I encourage everyone who can go along to do so, to get a better understanding of the rural community and the importance of rural matters to our economy. The hon. Lady refers to Silverstone; I also recognise the importance of grand prix and Formula 1 for technological invention, jobs and its wider contribution to the economy. I am delighted that it has put her area on the map.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Historic buildings are a huge part of our national identity, yet restoration is harder than demolition. As the former manager of Leigh Spinners Mill—I am not sure I have mentioned that in this House before—I have seen the barriers that regeneration projects face at first hand. Given that more than 600,000 potential homes are locked up in historic buildings, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the reuse of existing buildings and ensure that the issue is prioritised in the forthcoming high streets strategy?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion the restoration and reuse of historical buildings; I know that there have been many successful cases of that happening in her area. This is an important matter for local communities, and she raises an important point about housing. I will ensure that she gets a reply from the relevant Minister, so that she can hear more about what the Government are doing and intend to do. In the meantime, she could consider applying for a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, or taking part in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, to give further voice to these important issues.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the young people, particularly in my constituency, who have completed GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs, T-levels and degrees, and all the brilliant teachers who got them there, and will he wish them all the best for the summer holidays and a well-deserved rest? The brilliant Esher sixth-form college in my constituency has been hit by the underfunding of post-16 education, as compared to lower secondary brackets, and also by the fact that the confirmed base rate of funding for post-16 is well below inflation. This means that high-achieving post-16 institutions may be forced to cut their academic cloth. Will the Leader of the House give time for debate on this sector, which is so important to our country’s prosperity?
Sir Alan Campbell
The sector is important to our country’s prosperity, and the Government are absolutely determined to do everything we can on that, including getting investment into post-16 education and, indeed, employment more widely. I am more than happy to join the hon. Member in congratulating all the young people in her constituency who have undertaken examinations. I wish them well for when the results come out. I pay tribute to them and the staff, and also to their sometimes long-suffering parents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
SPARK is York’s frontline incubator for the next generation of food, drink and creative businesses; it supports young entrepreneurs to establish their businesses with strong values and good practice. It has identified that VAT is the problem, and it is calling for the Government to support a 10% cut in VAT to enable its hospitality businesses to flourish. Can we have a statement from the Treasury on the impact of that, and on how we will enable community interest companies, such as SPARK, to support start-ups, so that they thrive?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and is a stout defender of the interests of her constituents. We recognise the contribution that hospitality businesses make to jobs, growth and local communities across the UK, but His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates—this follows on from an earlier question—that reducing VAT in the way she mentions would cost around £11 billion a year. To put that in context, it is roughly equivalent to the total expenditure on the Royal Navy. We are, however, committed to supporting the sector through targeted measures, such as our £4.3 billion business rates package and the Great British summer savings scheme.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Solihull’s Men Walking and Talking group is a huge success. It can lay claim to being if not the most successful one in the country, then certainly among them, and it improves both physical and mental wellbeing. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to all those who are organising that group and making it a success? Can he set out what more we can do in this place to promote such groups?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Member’s local Men Walking and Talking group, and the important contribution that such groups make, not least to mental health. The Government are absolutely determined to tackle the issue of poor mental health head-on, because it is important that men can play a full part in family life and their local communities without the scourge of poor mental health. He asks how we can raise these matters. He can raise them during a debate that he calls, or in the pre-recess Adjournment debate—but he has also just done it.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
In the highland games season, there are gatherings across my constituency in Blackford, Balquhidder, Lochearnhead and Strathyre, Bridge of Allan, Killin and Stirling. These games celebrate Scottish culture, boost local economies, and bring communities together, and no gathering would be complete without Scotland’s remarkable pipe bands. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the talented young musicians of Stirling and District Schools Pipe Band every success this year, and thank their tutors, Chris Gibb, Andrew Wallace and Chloe Taylor, for all they do to nurture the next generation of pipers and drummers? Will he also make time for a debate on the importance of highland games and bagpipes to culture, heritage and tourism, and thank all the local volunteers who do so much to ensure the success of every event?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in wishing the musicians of Stirling and District Schools Pipe Band every success, and I thank all volunteers who make events like the highland games possible. Tutors such as Chris, Andrew and Chloe, who pass down their skills to future generations, are invaluable; they are responsible for keeping such important traditions alive. If my hon. Friend is able to, I encourage him to highlight this success, and these important matters, in next Thursday’s pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am aiming to finish business questions around 12.15 pm, so perhaps we could have very short questions and answers.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Without wishing to disappoint colleagues who have excellent local agricultural shows, the Driffield show is the biggest and best one-day show in the country, and this month it will celebrate its 150th edition. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all those involved in the Driffield Agricultural Society, both now and in the past, and may we have a debate in Government time on food security and the importance of the rural economy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly make a special case for the Driffield show and everybody involved, and 150 years is a remarkable achievement. As I have said, such shows are an important part of local communities. The Government take food security very seriously, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity next Thursday to highlight the importance of not just Driffield Agricultural Society, but all the other agricultural societies in his constituency.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
This month, Ayrshire college won the UK training provider skills champion award at the Enginuity skills awards, for its work in development, engineering and aerospace. Engineering and aerospace remain critical for Ayrshire’s economy, and that national recognition demonstrates the vital role that further education colleges play in developing our young workforce. Colleges across Scotland continue to face financial pressures, despite delivering exactly the kinds of outcomes that Governments want. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the importance of investing in further education colleges across Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate Ayrshire college on its well-deserved award. We are committed to creating a skilled workforce that is fit for the future and aligned with local needs, with our £182 million industrial strategy and engineering skills package. Should my hon. Friend wish to apply for a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall, I am sure that it would be well attended; the shadow Leader of the House, for instance, does fantastic work on these issues in his constituency.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Crooked SNP chief Peter Murrell had his hand in the SNP piggy-bank to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds; he bought camper vans, crockery, and even toilet paper. We now learn that Police Scotland is also probing the Yes Scotland movement. Will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate, in Government time, on the financing of the SNP and the independence movement?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said before, the SNP should come clean on these matters, and authorities should hold it to account. The hon. Member talks about an investigation that is under way, and I will not comment on that. We will debate these matters in the future, but let us await the outcome of the investigations.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
At the end of May, a 94-year-old woman in my constituency was hospitalised with life-threatening injuries after she was run over by a teenager who was recklessly and illegally driving a Sur-Ron e-bike. The Government have rightly taken action through the seizure of bikes that are being driven illegally, but will my right hon. Friend allocate time for Members to consider, in the House, what action might be taken at point of sale to tackle this huge problem, which is causing damage and harm in our constituencies?
Sir Alan Campbell
E-bikes and e-scooters can be a great way to travel around the city, but we have heard too many tragic stories of unsafe e-bikes and e-scooters. Rogue sellers not only risk bringing dangerous products into homes but undermine confidence in active travel. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are raised with the Department for Transport, and should he seek a meeting with the relevant Minister, I will help him to arrange one.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
As well as it being world cup and Wimbledon season, we are in the middle of sports day season. I am sure that many hon. Members will be heading home to take part in parent races. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised with the Secretary of State for Education the issue of transitional relief following the reduction in the sports premium in schools. The Secretary of State responded that there was a misunderstanding, and that she would speak to my hon. Friend. However, the headteacher of St James’ school in Gaunt’s Common—a double award-winning sports school—and trust leaders in my constituency are equally confused, and need clarity in order to plan before schools break up. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State, or a Minister, to come back to the House and provide us all with clarification?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly wish everyone involved in sports days all the very best. I have to say, sports day triggers memories that are less than happy, but that is another matter. I know that the hon. Lady asked about a general concern, but if she lets me know the details of the particular school that she mentioned, I will raise the matter with the Department to see if we can get the clarification that she seeks.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
This year is the 500th anniversary of the battle of Linlithgow bridge, a pivotal moment in Scottish history, and part of a power struggle for the regency of King James V. To mark the occasion, Linlithgow Civic Trust and Battle 500, alongside local historians, schools and volunteers, have a huge programme of summer events, including a battle re-enactment. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those involved in bringing our local history to life? Will he make time for a debate on local volunteers who promote Britain’s rich heritage?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved in bringing the re-enactment of the battle of Linlithgow bridge to life. As she rightly points out, volunteer organisations like Linlithgow civic trust play a vital part in our living historical memory, allowing us to connect with our heritage. I pay tribute to them for their work. If she wishes to enlighten the House further, she could do so in the pre-recess Adjournment debate next week.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Can I welcome visitors from a very special school in Carmarthenshire, who have come to the House today? Three learners and their support staff have come the whole way from west Wales. Welcome to Westminster!
This Monday, a judicial review passed judgment on a case on land access, amid other matters, brought by a local landowner and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales against a private limited company—an energy company. That followed two court cases last year about landowners—people who had never been in trouble and had never been to court—being forced to give access to land or face legal bills of over £35,000. Why should farmers be forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds to defend their livelihoods? Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on meaningful community engagement between private limited energy companies and landowners, so that these bully-boy tactics are stopped?
Sir Alan Campbell
It sounds like a very concerning situation for the hon. Lady’s constituents. New energy infrastructure is important to ensure energy security, but it should be delivered through robust and proportionate consenting processes. Should she seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I am sure that it would be well attended.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I am sorry to report to the House that last week, a 13-year-old boy lost his life in the Royal Victoria dock in my constituency, following a similar incident in the Thames in my constituency last year. The Royal Life Saving Society has reported evidence of an 80% increase in child deaths related to drowning over the last five years. This week, I joined the Port of London Authority in launching a water safety campaign ahead of the summer holidays. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, this has been an issue across the country this summer. Could we have a debate in Government time on what more we can do to improve water safety, particularly for our young people and children?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend refers to tragic cases. I am sure that the whole House sends its sympathies to the friends and family of everyone who has lost their life during the extreme weather—and indeed previously—in water incidents. The National Water Safety Forum brings together a wide range of national groups to provide consistent guidance. There was a Westminster Hall debate on this matter last month, at which I understand it was agreed that a meeting would take place between all responsible Departments to look at what further action should be taken. I will get an update from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), on what is happening on that.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Businesses in Runcorn and Helsby are adversely affected—penalised, in fact—by the Merseyflow bridge tolls that make it difficult or impossible for them to compete with companies over the bridge in Widnes, and difficult to recruit from over the bridge. The 10-year funding review is due to happen this year. Will the Leader of the House ask the Transport Secretary to make a statement on how those businesses’ views and needs can be represented in that process?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the concerns that the hon. Lady raises. Let me raise that with the relevant Minister and get her an update on how they may be able to do that.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
More than a thousand British Jews and British Israelis have written to the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to urge a ban on settlement goods and services by the United Kingdom. That is because Netanyahu’s Government are expanding illegal settlements at such a rapid rate that we are effectively seeing the annexation by stealth of the west bank.
Does the Leader of the House agree that while this Labour Government have taken the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine, that is put at risk by Israel’s actions? We need not only to show that we share the anger of the British people over the death and displacement of the Palestinian people, but to stand up to Israel and ensure that a Palestinian state will become a reality, rather than be wiped off the map, which is what Israel proposes at the moment.
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government’s position remains clear. Settlements are illegal under international law. They undermine international efforts to secure a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and risk doing permanent damage to the prospects of a secure and viable Palestinian state being able to live in peace alongside a secure Israel. We have a debate on this matter this afternoon, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to attend it to make his case.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Last month, the High Court issued its judgment permitting the development of 119 homes in a flood risk area in the village of Yatton in Somerset. The site had failed the flood risk sequential test. The judgment prioritises building and development over protection against flooding and imperils existing homes and businesses in the area, and flies in the face of everything that insurers, lenders, Flood Re, the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are trying to do. Will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in DEFRA and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess jointly the likely impact of the judgment, which may set a national precedent whereby flood risk assessments shall be ignored?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I will, and I will seek an update for the hon. Lady.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Yesterday was one of my favourite days of the year—not because it was the Leader of the House’s birthday but because my Stafford students came down for their summer school. They met the Chancellor, the Speaker, other MPs and a Minister. They are passionate and inspiring young people who are keen to use their voices for good. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those people who gave their time for those young people yesterday? More importantly, will he thank those people around the UK who regularly volunteer to support young people and give them a safe space to be themselves?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved in making her summer school a success and all the volunteers who support youth groups in all our areas. I have heard many good things about her summer school—long may it continue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary what recent assessment she has made of the case of Uyghur Muslim Rahile Dawut, a folklorist and academic imprisoned in China solely for her faith and cultural identity, and what steps His Majesty’s Government have taken to secure her immediate release and to uphold freedom of religion or belief across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s foreign policy commitments?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. As he knows, we stand firm on violations of human rights. We have raised our concerns regarding the treatment of Uyghur Muslims with the highest levels of the Chinese Government. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Foreign Secretary, who will have heard his remarks, so that we can get the specifics of that case.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Black Country Day is on 14 July, and we have a lot to celebrate. The Black Country was the heart of the industrial revolution, we have Dudley castle and the Wren’s Nest nature reserve, where people can pick up a fossil—and, of course, we can celebrate the people of the Black Country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing all those celebrating Black Country Day a great day? Will he grant a debate on the Black Country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly echo my hon. Friend’s words about the importance of Black Country Day, and I wish everyone involved a success. We have got a pre-recess Adjournment debate—I said it was the day after tomorrow, but clearly it is next week—and should she wish to raise it in that debate, I am sure it would be a cause for celebration.
NATO Summit
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the NATO summit in Ankara, on the building of a stronger Europe within NATO with major increases in European—including UK—defence investment, on our continued and unwavering support for Ukraine, on our discussions with Gulf partners about the strait of Hormuz and on the opportunity that the Prime Minister and I took to raise with other leaders and Foreign Ministers the issue of Sudan. These are all issues that directly affect our national and economic security in the UK.
The NATO summit took place at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous than it has been for decades, and we have a war in Europe that has now been going on for longer than the first world war. Drones and missiles are changing the nature of warfare and there are continuing threats to the security of NATO allies, including cyber-threats, hybrid threats, sabotage, industrial scale misinformation, attempts to interfere with undersea cables and drone incursions. Just this week, we have seen Russia engaging in reckless and dangerous activity around our British aircraft carrier, which is on NATO operations in the north Atlantic. Three weeks ago, I went to see the concrete trenches and anti-tank defences being prepared by Polish troops along the Kaliningrad border, a sign of how seriously they take the importance of deterring Russian threats.
NATO has been the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security for over 75 years, protecting more than a billion people, but to ensure it remains as strong for the next 75 years, it needs to respond to changing threats. NATO is a defensive alliance, but we maintain our strength and security through deterrence and holding the capabilities to deal with any threat we may face. As the summit made clear, that means building a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.
The United States remains an indispensable and fully committed ally in NATO, but the burdens must be shared. In response to increased threats in Europe, Europe must step up. That is what allies committed to last year in The Hague, and what we are delivering this year in Ankara. European and Canadian allies are spending $140 billion more on defence this year than the year before, a rise of 20%. The UK is the third biggest cash contributor to NATO, including crucial specialist capabilities, such as our nuclear deterrent. Now the defence investment plan involves the biggest sustained increase in UK defence spending since the cold war, spending almost £300 billion over the next four years. As the Defence Secretary has set out, that means new capabilities, a new hybrid Navy, investments in digital and autonomous systems, and enhanced strike and air defence capabilities.
In Ankara, we brought together 12 allies to lead a European initiative to step up funding for deep precision strike capabilities, an initiative set to invest more than £37 billion over the next 10 years. We are working jointly with Norway on new frigates, with Italy and Japan on the next generation of fighter jets, and we are strengthening our maritime partnership with the Netherlands, with new amphibious transport ships. We agreed a new security and defence partnership with Turkey, and we discussed the importance of strong collaboration across our defence industries, which support tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. We are also bolstering UK leadership in NATO by appointing General Nick Perry to head up Joint Force Command Norfolk, which leads the protection of the High North and the US eastern seaboard.
NATO met at a critical moment for Ukraine’s resistance against brutal ongoing Russian aggression. Over the last week alone, Russia has launched two of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians overnight last Wednesday and at least 26 civilians overnight on Monday. Throughout this conflict, Putin has underestimated the strength of Ukraine and the solidarity of Ukraine’s friends. As a result of Ukraine’s resistance, Putin now faces deteriorating conditions within his armed forces, on the battlefield and in his economy, suffering a net loss of territory for the first time since 2023. Some 500,000 Russian soldiers have now been killed since the start of the invasion.
Ukraine is stepping up attacks deep inside Russia and occupied Crimea, causing Russia’s worst fuel crisis in decades, with queues at the petrol pump and prices rising. This is underpinned by continued sanctions by the UK and our allies against Russian oil and gas, and through action against the Russian shadow fleet. Despite that pressure, Putin still deludes himself that he can outlast Ukraine, and outlast NATO allies in our support for Ukraine. That is why it is so important that our support for Ukraine is enduring.
Since 2022, the UK has provided almost £25 billion in support for Ukraine. Two weeks ago, I announced £500 million in support for Ukraine’s recovery and energy security, alongside our military investment. In Ankara, we and allies have together pledged €70 billion in support to Ukraine in 2026, and at least equivalent levels in 2027, so that Ukraine is in the best possible position to negotiate a just and lasting peace.
On Tuesday, NATO Foreign Ministers also met with four of our Gulf partners, under the Istanbul convention initiative, to discuss the situation in the strait of Hormuz and in the region. The House will be aware that on Monday night, despite having made a clear commitment that the strait of Hormuz would be reopened, Iran attacked three commercial ships close to the Omani coast. Those attacks are a breach of the memorandum of understanding, a violation of Omani sovereignty and a contravention of the law of the sea. These are international shipping routes that commercial shipping has a right to pass. The United Kingdom condemns unequivocally the recent Iranian attacks on commercial shipping, including on Saudi and Qatari vessels.
No country has the right to hijack international shipping or to hold the global economy hostage, so we also condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian attacks on sites in Bahrain and Kuwait. We stand in solidarity with our partners across the region. Iran must halt these attacks on international shipping, support the reopening of the strait and return to de-escalation and diplomacy.
The UK stands ready to support a return to talks, because Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon and we need the full reopening of the strait of Hormuz. That is why, alongside France, the UK has established a multilateral maritime mission to support the de-mining of the strait, verification and reassurance to shipping, and ultimately to support the global economy, and ease the cost of living back home.
While in Ankara, I also raised directly with our allies the urgency of sounding the alarm on El Obeid in Sudan. I am deeply fearful that the Sudanese city is at risk of mass bloodshed and civilian casualties, with signs of plans for an assault by advancing Rapid Support Forces that are already encircling the city, as they cut off supply routes and unleash repeated drone attacks on fuel, infrastructure and storage sites. Strikes have already killed civilians and humanitarian workers. An estimated 500,000 civilians are now at risk, many of them women and girls who have already carried an intolerable burden throughout this three-year conflict. Last year, El Fasher became the site of unspeakable violence and suffering, atrocities that the UN’s fact-finding mission concluded bore the hallmarks of genocide. The world must not fail the people of Sudan again.
Last week, the UK convened an urgent debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council. A UK-penned resolution condemned atrocities, called for an urgent UN fact finding inquiry and urged the RSF to comply with international law and halt this attack, urging both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces to accept proposals that have been put forward for a truce. We are calling for an end to the external support and arms flows from other countries that are extending this conflict and fuelling this horrendous suffering. The United Nations arms embargo does not cover El Obeid, so it must be extended. We are urging all our allies and countries from across the world, as we discussed in Ankara this week, to maximise the pressure calling on all sides to protect the people of Sudan.
Effective foreign policy is domestic policy. Championing freedom of navigation supports UK energy security. Preventing bloodshed in Sudan speaks to our values and our interests. Supporting Ukraine’s security is supporting our own security. Strengthening NATO is how we make our country safer, our economy stronger and our people more secure. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by recognising some of the positive commitments in the NATO summit communiqué, including the important reaffirmation of the alliance’s commitment to collective defence under article 5 and to the transatlantic bond, and the essential new defence procurement announcements. The recognition of Ukraine as a contributor to transatlantic security is overdue, and we back the reiteration of the alliance’s support for Ukraine. I share the Foreign Secretary’s disgust at the Russian attacks in Kyiv in recent days.
The outcome of the Ukrainian war matters profoundly to NATO, as does our collective commitment to lead the world in helping Ukraine turn the tide in this war. We all know that the best deterrent against an invasion like this ever happening again is Russia’s expulsion from Ukraine. Now is the time to ramp up our support for Ukraine. Will the Government provide Ukraine with additional military capabilities or broker any new international packages of support, as we did so effectively at the outset of the war? Following the boarding of a Russian shadow fleet ship last month, will there be a sustained effort to disrupt the fleet’s operations? Will the Foreign Secretary commit to leading international pressure on the refineries buying Russian crude oil in order to cut the financial flows that are funding Russia’s illegal war?
The NATO communiqué refers to the conflict in Iran and touches on the strait of Hormuz. As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its actions.
I put on the record our solidarity with Oman following the outrageous breach of its sovereignty by Iran. We understand that Oman has agreed to work with Britain and France to ensure that its territorial waters remain safe. Last week in a joint statement with the French, Downing Street said:
“The UK and France also stand ready to deploy the wider Multinational Military Mission to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”
What does that mean in practice? Will there be a deployment? What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran? What opportunity will we have in this House to scrutinise and debate the Government’s plans?
As Defence Secretary, my good friend Ben Wallace invested millions in the development of cutting-edge autonomous minehunters. In his previous role as Minister for Defence Procurement, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), delivered Britain’s first ever defence drone strategy in 2024, which emphasised the use of uncrewed drones in the maritime domain, including for mine detection. Will either of those capabilities be deployed in the mission?
It is vital that Britain has capabilities to operate in theatres around the world, and of course that requires cash now, which the current Labour Administration are refusing to provide. Britain is already spending less of its GDP on defence than Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the United States, Denmark, Greece and Finland. How can we expect others to find more for defence when we are not leading by example? Because this Labour Government, in the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), have been “unable” and “unwilling” to provide the money we need to keep Britain safe, our country faces a huge shortfall in the years ahead. By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries.
There will be a change of Labour leadership in the coming weeks. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been left to find £4.7 billion at his next Budget, and there is no serious detail about the billions of pounds of so-called efficiency savings that this Government have identified. As the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, the Polish Foreign Minister, said of Britain under Labour:
“You’re spending something like £65 billion on defence and £360 billion on welfare. Lucky you, you must not feel any danger”.
In reality, this Government are prepared to plough billions into welfare while short-changing defence. We want to change that, and I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will she work with us to make progress on this? This is a serious time—Britain is under threat—and we need to step up in a significant way.
The Foreign Secretary also mentioned Sudan and the horrific situation in El Obeid. We know that words are not enough; action is needed. I agree with her on the need for the arms embargo to be extended, and the two warring parties must be pressed into a ceasefire.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, particularly her support for the commitments made in Ankara and the continuing condemnation of the Russian strikes. It has been an important part of the cross-party debates in this House and across the whole country that we have stood united behind Ukraine and in solidarity with it, and long must that continue.
The right hon. Lady is right that we will need to maintain the pressure on Russia. We see that as being about increasing sanctions; continuing to apply pressure through sanctions and maritime services bans; continuing with our military support for Ukraine, both directly and in partnership with our European allies, including through the loans for Ukraine that we continue to provide; and, crucially, providing energy infrastructure support and resilience—Ukraine needs the resilience to get through the winter, which we know is when Russia most heavily targets the civilian population. We will maintain that support. In fact, it is because of our commitment to the long-term future of Ukraine that we have signed a 100-year partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine in the spirit of solidarity.
I welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of Iran’s behaviour. It is telling that, despite having signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States, Iran seems to persist in the view that it has the right to control the strait of Hormuz, which is an international shipping route, and to attack commercial ships in Omani waters. That is a violation of Oman’s sovereignty, as well as a violation of the law of the sea. That is why we have been so strong in our condemnation and in seeking to mobilise countries across the world to put pressure on Iran and to get it to recognise the importance of the whole world’s support for freedom of navigation, the law of the sea and getting the global economy moving again.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of defence investment. She will understand that we are increasing investment in defence at a rapid pace—at the steepest pace since the cold war—and have made commitments to go further, but I should point out that it was her party that cut defence spending by 20%.
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary says from a sedentary position that times have changed. She is right: times did change. Times changed when Russia invaded Crimea. That was the evidence that the post-cold war peace dividend had gone, and yet it took her party 10 years to recognise that defence spending needed to increase. [Interruption.] For most of that period—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. My constituents and, I am certain, everybody’s constituents will be very interested in what the Foreign Secretary has to say.
Yvette Cooper
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For most of the period before the election, defence spending was nearer 2% of GDP. That is just too low, which is why we are increasing it; we have already increased it from 2.3% to 2.7%, and we have committed to go further. That has involved some difficult decisions, including on official development assistance and other areas. I hope the whole House will support that increased investment in defence, because ultimately, it underpins the security of our country and the security of our future.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The alliance is growing stronger by the week, but it is clear now that national security rests on economic security. Can she update the House on what conversations she had about how the allies will come together to build and enlarge an arsenal of democracy for the 21st century, whereby we collaborate on defence industrial policy and defence finance strategy on a wholly new scale that is fit for this new age of insecurity?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. There are links between our national security and our economic security; they are closely intertwined. That comes from the fact that if our economic security is jeopardised, including through things such as the closure of the strait of Hormuz, it has an impact on our national security and particularly on supply chains for critical minerals, for example, which may be crucial to our defence. As we increase the demand and procurement for and investment in defence, it is crucial that our supply chains and our defence industry collaboration across allies can keep up. That is why we had a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Ankara specifically about how we can better collaborate and integrate aspects of our defence industry. That is what supports tens of thousands of jobs here in the UK, but we need to do it in collaboration with other countries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. As we have come to expect of all major international summits, NATO’s meeting in Ankara was taken over entirely by Donald Trump’s tantrums and threats. He restated his claim that Greenland should become American, threatened the withdrawal of all remaining US troops from Europe, and once again lambasted allies for not joining his and Netanyahu’s calamitous war in Iran, which has upended the world economy and worsened a spiralling cost of living crisis for millions across Britain. That is no way to conduct international diplomacy. Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Donald Trump that his threats against Greenland are totally unacceptable?
However, there were some positive moments from the summit. NATO allies reaffirmed support for Ukraine, and the Prime Minister announced plans for the development of a new deep strike capability with our European partners. Will the Secretary of State outline how exactly the UK will provide its share of the £37 billion of funding for that capability?
Even before that new commitment, as has been pointed out, the Government’s own defence investment plan delivered only just over half of what military chiefs deem necessary for our national defence. Together with the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will she consider how defence bonds could be used rapidly to support the UK’s contribution to that initiative, bolster the confidence of our allies and send a clear signal to our adversaries? Have these plans been drawn up together with the Ukrainians? They have shown with incredible effect how deep strike capability can be developed fast and much, much more cheaply than £37 billion.
On defence funding, the Prime Minister discussed the possibility of collective financing and procurement models as a critical way to generate cheaper loans for military programmes and support greater interoperability. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether any progress was made at the summit to bring together the existing Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and our own multilateral defence mechanism into a single European rearmament bank?
Finally, the Secretary of State mentions El Obeid in Sudan and the thousands of lives at risk. The UK has the power to act, so will she proscribe the RSF, as has just been done with the IRGC? Will she suspend all UK arms sales to the UAE, given its role in arming the RSF?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman mentions a range of issues. In terms of the areas of agreement and disagreement, there will be areas where we continue to disagree with the President of the United States and have said so, including in our continued support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, which we have always made clear. That is why we worked in NATO and with the support of the United States for a new Arctic Sentry in NATO. The UK carrier strike group is operating as part of that. That is an important way of having a multilateral and shared defence of the High North, which is about protecting Canada, the United States, Norway and the western flank of Europe, including the United Kingdom, as well as the whole of Europe. That is the way in which we approach our Arctic security. That has strong agreement from the United States, which I think is a reflection of the way that we have worked to deal with those issues.
On the £37 billion for deep precision strike, we have allocated £3 billion over the first four years from the defence investment plan. That will help to fund some of the work we are doing with Germany and some separate work we are doing with France and Italy as part of a series of programmes all about deep precision strike, which we have brought European allies together on.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism. He may have seen that the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister put out a joint statement over the last couple of days to set out how we seek to work together to ensure that those initiatives, which do slightly different things, can combine and collaborate to ensure that we get the best possible impact.
On Sudan, we continue to raise the issue of arms flows, and we take that immensely seriously. That is exactly why we want to extend the arms embargo and believe that that needs to continue across the whole of Sudan. That is also why I have raised this issue with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are members of the Quad, and we will continue to pursue it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of proscription. He will know that that is a matter for the Home Office, but we believe that there should be a full arms embargo on Sudan.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for the work that she and the Prime Minister have done at the NATO summit. May I register my huge concern, and that of my constituents, that the ceasefire between the US and Iran appears to be over, due to the egregious breaches by Iran? The situation has escalated, with the US taking military action. May I ask for reassurance that those who helped to bring about the first ceasefire, including the UK, by working very closely with allies behind the scenes, will now do everything to try to bring about a new ceasefire, so that we can get a deal in place that will lead to a permanent peace? That will be good for the region and much better for the UK and the world economy.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. We need to see an end to Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping in the strait. Crucially, that means Iran must give up its claim that it somehow has the right to control international shipping routes and Omani waters, because it does not. We want to see a return to talks, and we want the ceasefire to be sustained. We have offered to support the technical talks around preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and the reopening of the strait through our multilateral maritime mission.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary said in her initial statement, particularly the point that we live in a more dangerous world than ever—I also agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, obviously. The point is surely this: there is no point apportioning blame between us. We are where we are now, in the most dangerous position that we have ever been in. Will the Foreign Secretary take away this thought in her talks with the new Prime Minister? Will she say that Members on both Front Benches, including the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, should co-operate in meeting our NATO defence commitments in full? That means no black holes or creative accounting. We should pay for them by curbing the spiralling welfare bill, which is out of control. It is a win-win situation; we defend the nation, get people off benefit dependency and work together to save our country.
Yvette Cooper
We agree about the nature of the increasingly dangerous world we live in and the importance of us being able to defend ourselves and maintain our security. We have committed to reaching the 3.5% commitment on defence, but that is part of a 5% commitment that was made to cover broader defence and security intelligence. The Father of the House will know that the UK invests substantially in our intelligence capabilities, which are unrivalled. That is why, if we combine that with the broader measure, the assessment is that we are already over 4% and on the trajectory towards the broader NATO figure of 5%. That is important. In addition to continuing to increase our investment in defence, we need to ensure that we are investing in wider intelligence, resilience and defence issues. That is how we will keep our country safe.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her focus on Sudan at the summit. The world has never been in a more dangerous place, with Russia playing a dangerous game in and around our waters and harassing our carrier strike group. I welcome the £70 billion for Ukraine pledged at Ankara. What difference will that make to Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression?
Yvette Cooper
This is partly about the immediate support that Ukraine needs, both in terms of its military capabilities—we provide support, but we also learn from Ukraine’s phenomenal innovation and strength, and the way in which it is using that investment and support—and its resilience, including civilian and energy infrastructure resilience. Perhaps most importantly, however, the fact that we have made a long-term commitment is also crucial to Ukraine’s defence. It is because Putin thinks he can outlast Ukraine and its friends that he continues with his war and will not come to a peace agreement.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could the Foreign Secretary say anything about the bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, and can she shed any light on the discussions they had about the United States sharing its Patriot missile production licences with Ukraine? What can the Government do—apart from welcoming that, as I hope the Foreign Secretary will—to facilitate that exchange and ensure that it happens? It could be crucial.
Yvette Cooper
I can certainly tell the hon. Member that we support what I think were very positive bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, which included the range of support they discussed, as well as the progress that Ukraine is making and the strength it has shown. I do not have further details for the House on the next steps, but we strongly welcomed the commitment that the US President made regarding licences for Patriot missiles.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Recent events have underlined the need for us to co-operate much more closely with our European allies and partners, so what discussions did she have at the summit with her European counterparts on joint procurement between British and European defence industries, which I think will ultimately make our country safer and stronger?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We know that no one country can do this alone, especially for some of the most advanced capabilities; we also know that if we want really effective interoperability, joint procurement with our closest allies is hugely beneficial, and it helps our defence industries and jobs as well. One of the best examples of that is our joint procurement of new frigates with Norway—we are effectively procuring the same frigates for Norway and the UK, so we will have full interoperability as well as our combined strength in the procurement process.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly highlighted the UK’s unwavering commitment to our ally, Ukraine. Her Estonian counterpart recently said that
“Russia wages war not only with missiles, but with narratives.”
With that in mind, last week I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian children’s TV show that is on ITVX and which Netflix has recently picked up. Funding from that show makes its way back to the Russian state, funding Putin’s illegal war. We have also recently seen the International Olympic Committee allow Russia potentially to participate in the next Olympic games, and Eurovision has said that Russia may return to the stage, so what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with UK colleagues and international counterparts to ensure that we stop allowing Russia to use the world stage to push its propaganda and its narratives?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of challenging Russia in every sphere. Not only does it attempt to use different spheres for its narratives and its misinformation, but it has used misinformation on an industrial scale to seek to undermine democracies, which is why we have imposed sanctions in that regard. As the hon. Member knows, we have strongly condemned the IOC’s decision on the Olympics —we strongly disagree and believe it is the wrong thing to do. I will pass on the points that he has raised to the Culture Secretary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I am really pleased that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were able to discuss Sudan at the NATO summit, because it is the biggest humanitarian crisis the world is facing. However, did she also have the opportunity to discuss the situation in Gaza and the west bank? It is nearly two years since the ICJ gave its advisory opinion and recommended that all states refrain from entering into economic or trade dealings that support illegal settlements. During business questions this morning, the Leader of the House confirmed that those settlements are illegal, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should follow countries such as Spain, our NATO ally, in giving full effect to our obligations under international law?
Yvette Cooper
I did take the opportunity to discuss the situation in both the west bank and Gaza with some of our allies and partners. I am deeply worried that last year’s 20-point plan for Gaza—which was hugely important and which we supported, as did the whole world—is at risk of running into the ground. The humanitarian crisis there is not yet eased. I am also deeply worried about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, as well as the increase in settler violence that we are seeing, some of which is effectively settler terrorism. That is jeopardising the two-state solution that we strongly believe in. We are looking at what stronger measures we can take in this area, including working with allies; we are looking at restrictions on trade with illegal settlements, but also at the strongest sanctions regimes. We will continue to work on those issues with partners, because we need a two-state solution that supports the security of Palestinians and Israelis alike—it is the only way to ensure that.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to Sudan, and I am very pleased that she is shining a spotlight on El Obeid. However, although I recognise how difficult it is to work closely with our Gulf allies on the situation in Iran while at the same time having to condemn them for their activities behind the scenes in Sudan, surely the lesson of El Fasher is that unless we take a robust approach with those Gulf allies, we will not be able to prevent another El Fasher in El Obeid.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of preventing another El Fasher. That is exactly why I raised the issue directly with a series of European allies and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and why the Prime Minister raised it with President Trump and President Macron—we have raised the issue across the board. We want concerted diplomacy across our allies, but there also has to be pressure on all those who have the potential to influence the warring parties. Some of those are countries that have influence, while some of them are involved in arms flows—we believe that around 12 countries are involved in arms flows that are supporting the different warring parties. That is why we want the arms embargo to be extended, and it is why I am having intense discussions with a series of nations, all of which have potential influence in Sudan. I will continue to shine a spotlight on what is happening.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the Foreign Secretary’s responses to questions about the defence, security and resilience bank and the multilateral defence mechanism, can she flesh out how the UK envisages those initiatives working more closely together, in practical terms and maybe in financial terms?
Yvette Cooper
That work is under way, and has a joint commitment from our Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister, who have been responsible in parallel for beginning those initiatives. The multilateral defence mechanism focuses mostly on the joint procurement side, while the defence, security and resilience bank focuses particularly on support for small and medium-sized businesses. They are effectively complementary initiatives, so we want them to be able to operate together, and to look at how we build a much stronger link between those initiatives and take them forward. That work is under way at the moment, and I am sure we will provide my hon. Friend with regular updates.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that he must not walk in front of another Member when I am calling him.
Jeremy Corbyn
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global arms expenditure has now reached $2.8 trillion, with the USA, Europe, Russia and China spending the largest amounts. At any time during the NATO summit was there any strategic discussion about the way the world is spiralling out of control, with massive levels of expenditure on armaments, increasing wars, cuts in overseas aid by almost every country, and attacks on welfare budgets in every country as well? We are becoming a world that is increasingly at war, with increasing poverty at home. I realise that none of these issues is simple, but surely there needs to be some strategic look at what we are doing, or is the history of the 21st century going to be how we allowed the world to burn and spiral into war while increasing poverty at home in every country?
Yvette Cooper
As I have said, our security since the second world war has very much depended on the NATO alliance, which has always been a defensive alliance that has built its strength through deterrence. Deterrence is immensely important. When we reached the end of the cold war in 1990, there was at that point a substantial peace dividend. Many countries, including our own, saw reductions in investment in defence and more money went into other things in that period. Sadly, since then, what we have seen, including in Europe since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, is the end of that post-cold war peace dividend.
When we see growing threats to our security, we have to maintain the defensive alliance that NATO has always been and make sure that NATO has the capabilities to respond to any threat that might come in our direction. That is how we deter those threats, whether that is through our deep precision strike capability that we have been talking about or through other increased capabilities, such as matching the technical capabilities that Ukraine has demonstrated in anti-drone warfare. We have to ensure that we have all those kinds of capability, including air defence capabilities, so that we deter the threats against us and maintain our security. It is troubling that we now live in a more dangerous world, but we have to rise to that threat and ensure that we can keep our people safe.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
While it is always great to see the Foreign Secretary, it is convention that the Prime Minister comes to the House to give the statement after a NATO summit. When she goes back to Downing Street, perhaps she can remind the Prime Minister that the country expects him to govern as Prime Minister for the 11 days he still has in the role, and this House expects him to come to the House on important matters such as the NATO summit.
What discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with her counterparts on improving missile defence for Ukraine, whose hard-pressed civilian population are still being bombarded every single day? In particular, Patriot missile systems may not be available, whether through cost or availability, given their redeployment to the middle east, but are there not systems in Japan and South Korea that could be used? Although there are some issues around the Japanese and South Koreans exporting some of that technology, where there is a political will, a way can be found to help the Ukrainian civilian population.
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were extensive discussions at the NATO summit about air defences for Ukraine and the potential to mobilise a wide range of different partners and allies from across the world who may have other capabilities which could provide immediate and short-term support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed to see me at the Dispatch Box. I saw the Prime Minister at the NATO summit in a series of meetings, bilaterals and in the main NATO council, too. He was continually raising the importance of our 100% solidarity with Ukraine, our support for NATO and our commitment to these long-term defence partnerships for the future. He was also seeking to raise at the highest of levels the issues around Sudan, which are about our values and our interests. I pay tribute to everything that the Prime Minister has done over the past two years to put the UK back on the world stage.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having criticised successive coalition, Conservative and Labour Governments for inadequate defence spending, may I yet again remind the Foreign Secretary that during the 1980s we successfully came through the height of the cold war by spending between 4% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was without creative accounting? On a more positive note, did she detect the seeming shift in the attitude of the American President towards the Ukraine conflict? Is that because he just wants, as always, to be on what he perceives to be the winning side, or is it a sign that the depredations of the killer in the Kremlin are finally getting through to the occupant of the White House?
Yvette Cooper
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for being liberal in his criticism of all Governments—I accept that point. The US assessment of what is happening recognises Ukraine’s strength and resilience and the fact that, despite all the initial expectations that Putin would win the war easily, the opposite has been the case. It is also recognition of some of the links between Russia and Iran and their shared technologies and support, and how those relate to the security threats we face. It recognises the breadth of the Russian threats to NATO allies, but in particular Russia’s failings in Ukraine and the strength of Ukraine’s response and the willingness to support Ukraine in that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Scotland stands ready to play its full role in the defence of Britain with many fine young men and, increasingly, women in our forces. We also have a huge array of industrial companies working on defence contracts. There is a problem, however, which is the Scottish Executive. In a remarkable display of overreach, they have blundered on to the world stage and refused to put vital public funds into defence firms that have legitimate commercial relationships with our ally Israel. What can the Government do about a fifth columnist First Minister in Edinburgh, John Swinney, who is damaging British security and thereby NATO, too?
Yvette Cooper
Defence and foreign policy are rightly reserved matters, because they relate to the security of the whole United Kingdom. Scotland plays a crucial role as part of that—not just as part of our armed forces, but by having crucial parts of our defence industry. We must continue to support that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which had vast portions of positivity and good news within it. While the £70 billion Ukraine package and the 5% spending target by 2035 sound impressive, our constituents want to know just how well those declarations translate into safety on the ground. Russia continues its brutal onslaught. As was rightly pointed out at the summit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression are incredibly worrying, too. How will the Government ensure that all NATO countries are fully playing their part and that every pound coming from our taxpayers will be matched by fellow NATO countries and their taxpayers?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the reply she gave to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? By including some other admittedly vital services, she managed to come to a figure of 4% spending on defence. The reality, as we know, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on the US for its defence. Bearing in mind the President’s recent comments, will she acknowledge that further increases will have to take place over the coming years? It is an internal debate for Government whether that comes from the welfare budget, as the Father of the House suggested, or elsewhere.
Yvette Cooper
I agree that we need to go further. The defence investment plan has set out a plan that takes us from 2.3% up to 2.7%. We have made commitments to go to 3% and then to 3.5% on core defence spending, so we of course need to go further. We need to ensure that as we increase investment, we also increase our capabilities and expand our defence industry. We must do so collectively, and with the most modern technology and capabilities. We must also show leadership, because it is not just about investment. As we work with our partners, those crucial UK capabilities and leadership are what keep our people safe.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions, I mentioned the interests of council tax payers in Tendring district. I probably should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it says that I am a council tax payer in Tendring district.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which is now on the record.
Timms Review: Interim Report
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Timms review of the personal independence payment—to make it fair and fit for the future, both for the disabled people who need it and for the taxpayer.
Today, the Government are publishing an interim report on behalf of the review’s steering group. Copies will be placed in the Library in both Houses. We are committed to openness and transparency, so it sets out the evidence gathered so far and the emerging themes. It will inform the recommendations that will now be developed for the final report, which is to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn.
PIP was introduced more than a decade ago, but the benefit has never been fully reviewed. Since 2013, the number of people reporting a disability has increased significantly; patterns of disability and ill health have changed; and the workplace and wider society have evolved. We have seen a sharp rise in disability and long-term health conditions, including in mental ill health among younger people. The number of people receiving PIP has risen considerably and is forecast to continue growing. Against that backdrop, we are taking a fresh look at whether a system introduced 13 years ago still reflects the realities of modern life, supports independent living and is sustainable for the long term.
The Timms review is the first time that the UK Government have co-produced reforms on this scale. Our aim has been to have a review that is not just about disabled people, but shaped with disabled people. That means working together with disabled people and drawing on their lived experience. The review is led by three co-chairs—me, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson—and a steering group of 12 people we have recruited, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health. The group represents a range of impairments, as well as different parts of the country. No single group can represent the full range of experiences of disability, however, so we have set up a wide programme of engagement of varied, accessible opportunities in which people with differing lived and learned experiences can get involved.
The interim report brings together the evidence we have heard so far. It includes a summary of findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses, and an evidence pack provided by my Department to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering. It is the strongest evidence base ever assembled on PIP, on the assessment process and on the experiences of those who rely on the payment.
The interim report presents a clear message from the steering group: PIP is hugely valued for managing the additional costs of disability, but its current design and delivery are no longer fit for purpose. The assessment for PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising, and over 90% of those responding to the call for evidence reported that their experience of the PIP assessment was negative.
PIP provides a lifeline for many, but the fear of losing it on reassessment can create serious barriers to participation in work, community life and other everyday activities. That is the direct opposite of the intention, which has always been to support independence and participation. The report also highlights that the benefit has not kept up with wider changes since PIP was introduced.
This work will sit alongside the Milburn review into young people and work, which is looking at the factors behind rising economic inactivity among young people and how the Government can better support participation, opportunity and independence.
The interim report sets out the next steps for the review. It outlines the evidence and engagement programme over the coming months, and how the review will test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in experience.
We are not looking for quick fixes here. Reform needs to be guided by the evidence, if we are to address the underlying problems in the system and deliver lasting change. The Government are committed to a fairer system that has the trust of both the public and the people who rely on it. We have introduced the recording of health assessments by default, and we are substantially increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments to 30%, which reverses the sharp decline under the previous Government and helps to improve trust, accuracy and confidence in the assessments.
Our objective is to reform the system so that it works better for disabled people, while ensuring that it is sustainable for the long term, and that the support will be there for future generations who need it. The review has been tasked with developing recommendations that can be delivered within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for future PIP spending.
I thank everybody who has contributed time, evidence and expertise so far. I thank the steering group, including my fellow co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, for their support, commitment and determination. Crucially, I also thank the very large number of disabled people who have shared their experiences to help shape this work. The Government are committed to helping to remove the unnecessary barriers that disabled people too often face. This groundbreaking review is only part of that work, but it is an important part. We want to support disabled people in playing as full a part in society as possible. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I put on record my thanks to the 38,000 people and organisations who took part and responded to the call for evidence.
Let us be honest about how we got here. This review was not born out of principle; it was born out of panic. Last summer, the Government brought forward proposals for £5 billion of welfare savings, but 126 of their own Members rebelled, and within days, Ministers had abandoned the lot. The Timms review is a fig leaf draped over that failure—a review commissioned not to fix the system, but to get the Government through a difficult week.
A year on, what do we have? An interim report. Not a decision, not a reform, but a report about a report, with a promise of full findings in the autumn, and perhaps legislation at some later stage. Meanwhile, the welfare bill keeps rising. Spending on PIP alone is forecast to reach £43 billion a year by the end of this decade. Every month of drift is paid for by working people, and every month of uncertainty is endured by nearly 4 million claimants.
The Opposition accept that the system needs reforming. That is why, last month, we launched the Conservative party’s review of disability and sickness benefits. It is a root-and-branch review of a failing system that will look into who should get help, how they should be assessed, what form that help should take, the conditionality of support and how to control the level of overall spending. It asks a much more fundamental set of questions than this review. It sets out to make savings, as well as to build a better system.
The Government have now had two years, one abandoned Bill and two reviews, but they have not delivered a single lasting reform. The official Opposition’s position is clear. We would restore face-to-face assessments as the default, because decisions of this consequence should not be made down the phone. We believe that people with milder health conditions are better served by treatment and support to get them into work than by being signed off for a lifetime on welfare. We would restrict access to sickness and disability benefits for those without a long-term connection to this country. We would bring the welfare bill down, because a welfare system that is unsustainable is no protection for those in genuine need.
Let me press the Minister on a few points, because there was very little detail in his statement. First, after two years of dither and delay, the Government have finally accepted what we have been saying all along: the welfare system is in urgent need of reform. Ministers boast about consulting nearly 40,000 people, yet they appear to have ignored the most important stakeholder of all—the British taxpayer. When will the Government actually take decisive action to get the system back on track? Secondly, the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee in June that the review has the power to recommend reductions, and that he had personally asked it to consider conditions such as anxiety and depression and neurodiverse conditions. Will the interim findings address whether PIP is the right benefit for those conditions, and will he tell the House whether he is ruling them in or ruling them out?
Thirdly, before this review began, we were told that spending would not rise beyond existing projections, yet those projections already build in £43 billion of PIP spending by 2030. Does the Minister seriously believe that this amounts to meaningful reform? Would it not be better for the review to focus on identifying savings and restoring the long-term sustainability of the welfare system, rather than rubber-stamping an ever-growing bill for taxpayers?
Finally, the Milburn review concluded that the PIP system is failing to engage young disabled people in meaningful conversations about aspiration, challenges and the support that they need, yet the Government response appears to move precisely in the opposite direction by extending PIP award periods and reducing the frequency of contact between claimants and the system. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental contradiction between Alan Milburn’s diagnosis of the problem and the Government’s proposed solution?
Welfare should be a safety net, never a way of life, and a Government who cannot reform welfare cannot control spending. Disabled people deserve certainty, and taxpayers deserve value. The country cannot afford yet another year of dithering and delay, so I ask the Minister simply: when will the Government stop reviewing and start reforming?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman has set out some trenchant criticisms of the system that his party set up and left behind, and the question in everybody’s mind is: why did the Conservatives not do anything about it? They had 14 years, and they left the problems to which he has referred. He should be apologising to the House for the system that the party he represents left behind. The biggest ever rise in the welfare bill was in their last year in government.
We previously heard that the Conservative party has a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, although nobody has any idea at all what those cuts will be. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that figure in his statement, so I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives now have a plan. He said that the Conservatives will review PIP; I welcome his belated recognition of the value of a review, but I do not know whether that means that they do not have a plan any more, or that they are throwing away the plan until they have carried out their review.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly expressed concern about the rising costs of the system—the public are rightly concerned about that—and particularly about the steep increase in the number of young people who are claiming, but we have set up work to address that problem. His party abandoned the growing number of young people applying for benefits; we will not do so. We are changing the question that the system is asking, and we are providing employment support and the youth guarantee to give young people the chance of a decent future.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the small number of face-to-face assessments, but that is what was left behind by the previous Government. Understandably, the system moved away from face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, but they were never brought back; that is the problem. We are increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which is an important and positive step. When we were upstairs debating a measure to facilitate greater face-to-face assessment, another shadow Minister said that it was a “nice to have”, rather than essential. We think that face-to-face assessments are key to rebuilding trust in the system, and that is why we are making the changes we are.
The system that the Conservatives left behind did not work for disabled people, and did not work for taxpayers. This review will bring forward proposals to fix the problems that they created.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that—as I have explained to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will have to leave straight after my question to chair Westminster Hall.
I thank my right hon. Friend for doing this very challenging piece of work. I think that the theme of fairness, for the people who need benefits and for taxpayers, is right. I have spoken to him briefly about the complaints from the Link Community Hub in Stradbroke in my constituency about the fact that people there with mental health conditions who are claiming PIP have drug abuse and alcohol abuse conditions, and are using PIP to fund those conditions. I have also complained about the young lads in their 20s driving around in Motability cars in Darnall; someone in the community has been paid to fill in the forms for them. On the other hand, so many constituents with really serious conditions get turned down for PIP, and can get it only if they struggle through the appeal system, sometimes without any help at all. So the system is not fair to anyone at present. I commend him for his suggestions, but is he going to have a real look at the different reasons people give for applying for PIP, and at how to respond to them properly?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think we have an appointment in the diary to talk about the issues that he has raised about his constituency, and his constituent who has drawn his attention to them. My hon. Friend is right that, at present, the system does not work properly for disabled people, and it does not give taxpayers confidence that the funding is being well used. We are determined to turn things around and to be fair to both, and I am grateful for his support for the efforts we are making.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Minister and everyone involved in the review for their hard work; this is a difficult subject, so it is much appreciated.
Today’s report has confirmed what perhaps all of us knew for many years, which is that PIP is supposed to act as a lifeline, but is administered through a broken system. Disabled people say that the application process actively disincentivises them from staying in work and maintaining an active social life. That is unfair on claimants and damaging for our economy, and it should worry us all. People deserve far better. We welcome this interim report, and we will engage constructively with the Government and play our role in the delivery of genuine improvements to the system. We want a society in which everyone can live independently and with dignity. We need the right support in place to ensure that disabled people and their carers can live their best possible lives, and the PIP system must be built around those principles.
We must, however, recognise the structural underlying challenges in the operation of the system. In 2024 prices, spending on incapacity and disability benefits rose from £34 billion a year in 2019 to £51 billion a year in 2024, under the previous Conservative Government. The number of those economically inactive due to long-term health issues rose from 2.1 million to more than 2.8 million in the same period, and the figure is stuck at a similarly high level now. This is seriously worrying, and the UK is largely an outlier in that regard. On current trends, the total bill for working-age sickness and disability benefits is projected to rise to £78 billion in 2030, which means that it will have more than doubled in 10 years.
Managing these economic pressures in an effective, fair and sustainable way is vital, so could the Minister expand a little on the work done to make sure that the evidence gathered is representative? Is work under way to address the root causes of these challenges in a holistic way, looking at everything from employment support to mental health? Can he also update the House on progress on merging PIP and universal credit incapacity benefit assessments?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review, and for his tribute to those who have put a great deal of work into it already, and who will be putting in a lot more between now and the autumn.
The hon. Gentleman is right to make the points that the system is not working well for disabled people at the moment, and that its costs are rising rapidly in a way that is of concern to many, including, rightly, taxpayers. He is right to highlight that this benefit, which is supposed to contribute to independence and participation, too often presents a barrier to those things, because so many people are worried that if they undertake an activity, the Department for Work and Pensions will say, when they get reassessed, “Oh, so you didn’t need your benefit after all, then,” and take it away. There is striking evidence of the scale of the concern about going to work, or taking part in exercise or sport. The current system presents significant barriers, and we want to address those. There are, absolutely, concerns about the rising costs, which we also need to address. All those factors will be in the minds of the steering group as we progress with the review, ahead of our final report in autumn.
The steering group, as I mentioned, is made up almost entirely of disabled people. The concern about the financial sustainability of this benefit is of great concern to them as well, because if it is deemed to be not financially sustainable then there is a risk to its future. We need the support to be present for the long term for the large number of people for whom it is vital.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his work and look forward to welcoming him to Graeae theatre in my constituency, which is an exemplar of how to support disabled people to work and fully participate. In the discussions he has had so far, is he looking at adaptive technology? Money can be one of the barriers to living a full life, but there are now new technologies that can sometimes be in place of some of the funding that has been available for people to buy things themselves. Is he having any discussions with the steering group on that issue?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are doing quite a lot of work in the Department specifically on assistive technology. In fact, the Secretary of State was at a roundtable recently with representatives of the tech industry. One problem is that the technology is moving on rapidly but a lot of people do not know about it. People are not even aware of the technology that is already in our phones and available without any extra charge. We are doing quite a lot of work on that at the moment. I hope we will, later this year, be able to issue a call for evidence on how to do a better job on exactly the areas my right hon. Friend highlights.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for his statement. What a shame he has been asked to look at this issue only now, when his party had 14 long years in Opposition to work out what they wanted to do. Given that he acknowledges the system needs reform—as every new Government acknowledge—does he accept that, in today’s world, a system of cash payments to some people with conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, where half the claimants are aged between 16 to 24, is not what they need most? Indeed, some of them have no financial needs at all. Does he accept that the money would be best saved—will he confirm that there will be savings?—and some of it invested in better health and community services, technology, and incentivising businesses to employ the six in 10 young people who are not in education, training or work?
Sir Stephen Timms
I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital. We will not be moving away from the importance of that, but I think there is a question about whether the process can also point people towards help that may be valuable to them in addition to, or in some cases perhaps instead of, a cash payment. There is help and support that people need, and I think the process could help to point people to that. One problem people have had to contend with is the terrible NHS waiting lists, which thankfully are now being reduced, but the system may be able to point people to the right place in the health service. We are looking at all those issues and we will come back with recommendations in our final report.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I welcome the review’s direction of travel. As we know, the PIP system is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it has created much mistrust, stress and worry. More importantly, it has created a hostile environment for disabled people. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, which the Minister attended along with representatives of the steering group, we heard from disabled people about their experiences, and from organisations including Mencap and the Royal National Institute of Blind People that the assessment and PIP do not truly reflect or recognise the lived experience of many disabled people. As we move forward into the second phase of the review, can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to have co-production at the heart of this process? The Minister should be commended for the work he is doing in co-producing the review. It is the first time the Department has taken that step, so we really cannot take lessons from the Conservative party. Can he reassure me that co-production will remain at the heart of this work?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to her work as the chair of the APPG on disability, and I am grateful to her for her welcome to us the other week. She is absolutely right. I very much hope that people with sight impairments and others looking at the review will feel that the Government have listened to the points that have been made for a long time. I assure her that co-production will be at the heart of the rest of the work as well. It was, of course, a decision of this House that the review should be co-produced. We have worked very hard to ensure that we are properly co-producing it. I think we are gaining the benefits of that approach and that the outcome from this exercise will be significantly better because it is a co-produced review.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the review plan to look into the question of what happens when something goes wrong in the arrangements for a disabled person receiving PIP or universal credit? This time last week I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions the fact that my casework team had been trying for six months to get an answer on behalf of someone who lost PIP and UC. We had a holding letter in February, but we have still had no substantive reply and this lady is getting more and more desperate. We did write to the Minister on 8 June. I know he has been very busy, but he should be receiving a letter, if he has not already, from the Leader of the House. When he deals with that individual case, will it perhaps serve as a guide to what is needed more generally to be able to communicate on behalf of our constituents?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I shall look out for the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and I hope he will receive a reply in short order. He is right that the system needs to work well for people to be confident in it. One thing he may welcome is that we have just started recording by default the assessments for PIP—the focus in the review is on PIP specifically—partly so that when something does go badly wrong, and his constituent’s case may well be an example of that, we can look back at what happened in the assessment and ensure that that mistake does not happen again.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work with disability groups as part of the review. As I saw during the APPG on disability roundtable and at the roundtable in Newcastle that I organised, the lived experience of those affected by disability must drive the reform of the disability benefit system. The report highlights that that lived experience is also shaped by the misinformation, disinformation and confusion around disability benefits as part of the wider public debate, which can lead to the demonisation of those with disabilities. It can also lead to unrealistic assumptions and expectations in communities more broadly. What can he do as part of his review to address that misinformation, disinformation and confusion, and ensure a stronger, more rigorous and better evidenced public debate?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and she is absolutely right. It has certainly been very clear in our review that there is concern among disabled people about some of the misinformation that she refers to. We want to ensure that correct and clear information is provided to people, and that there is clarity on the eligibility criteria for PIP and the assessment process. I hope that is going to help, but I think there will need to be other efforts, and we will work with disabled people’s organisations and disability charities to significantly improve the position.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is a fundamental question here about what our priority is. Is it to reduce the bill, to reduce the amount of money that we are spending, or to ensure that disabled people can access all the human rights that the rest of us can, access society and be supported? We must recognise the extra costs of disability. What is the priority? The Conservatives are very clear: their priority is to reduce the bill. Our priority is to ensure that disabled people can live full, pleasant, excellent and wonderful lives. I appreciate the really hard work that has been put in by the team who have been involved in the co-production. May I continue to encourage the Minister to talk to Social Security Scotland and our colleagues in the SNP Government about their experiences of the adult disability payment and whether the changes that have been implemented in Scotland would make a positive difference to those claiming PIP?
Sir Stephen Timms
Our objective must be both the things that the hon. Lady refers to. We need a system that works well for disabled people and that helps to remove unnecessary barriers that too often hold them back, but we also need to create a system that has the confidence of taxpayers, which is the objective of our review. We are certainly very interested in what has been happening in Scotland, and in the work of Social Security Scotland. At one of our forthcoming expert evidence sessions, we will hear from Edel Harris, who, as the hon. Lady knows, has recently undertaken a review of the adult disability payment in Scotland. We are very keen to monitor what has happened there.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the review and thank disabled people, who have shaped it. Last year, I was pleased that the Minister accepted my amendment to the Universal Credit Bill to ensure that co-production with disabled people was put at the heart of the Timms review before any future changes to PIP were brought forward. Today’s rich and important findings demonstrate why “nothing about us without us” is so crucial in shaping Government disability policy. How does the Minister plan to ensure that colleagues across his Department—as well as Alan Milburn and Sir Charlie Mayfield, who are reviewing ways to close the employment gap for disabled people and young people with mental health problems—learn from the Timms review and integrate the voices of disabled people? Will the Minister agree to come back to the House with the full findings of his report and to ensure that changes to PIP are joined up with the findings of the two other reviews, so that there is strategic coherence across Government policy on getting more disabled people into work?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her amendment. As she rightly says, that was what took us down the road of co-production, which I think has been a very fruitful avenue for the review. Central Government have certainly not done co-production on this scale before—I am not sure that we have done co-production at all in the past—but we are undertaking this review in a thoroughly co-produced way. It has been a very positive experience, including for the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will want to learn the lessons for future work. One thing that we will be doing is evaluating this review, so that those lessons can be properly documented and taken account of in the future.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to stay in touch with Sir Charlie Mayfield, who leads the Keep Britain Working review, and Alan Milburn, whose work I have referred to. I spoke to Alan the other day, and we will ensure that all this work is taken together. I am pleased that both Alan and Sir Charlie Mayfield have been talking to disabled people’s organisations to contribute to their work, and I know that will continue.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), I welcome the broad direction of the review. I acknowledge that this is happening in the context of some people attempting to create a hostile environment—I hope Count Binface will deal with one source of that hostile environment in the weeks to come—but there is also the issue of language, as I think the Minister acknowledges. We should use less of the language of “welfare benefits” and “dependency”, and more of the language of “investment in people”, particularly investment in mental health services. Will he work with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are supported before they need benefits, and that we invest in people so that their talents can be enjoyed in the workplace?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of language. This is a topic that the organisation Turn2us has been thinking about lately. One of the things that I am pleased about is that my job title is Minister for Social Security. I think that I am the first Minister to have “Social Security” in their job title since the abolition of the old Department of Social Security at the end of the 1990s. I think “social security” is a good term, and this review is about delivering that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all the work that he has done, especially on the co-production front, which has been so important to disabled communities. One of my constituents had his PIP disallowed on renewal over a late form. He was reassessed, with no change to his condition, and scored zero points, which was upheld on review. It was only at tribunal, where my team represented him, that he finally won the highest rate of daily living support, having gone two whole years without any help. What reassurances can the Minister give me that this type of dehumanising failure will not be seen under the new system?
Sir Stephen Timms
It is certainly our objective that the dehumanising aspects of the current system—he describes an example very well—should not be a feature of the future system. That is the clear aim of this review. The case to which he refers is not unusual, and many hon. Members will have similar examples from their own constituencies. The fact that we are now recording assessments by default could help us to find out why that assessment went so badly wrong. I really hope that we can improve things and rebuild confidence among disabled people and taxpayers that the system is doing the job we need it to do.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I have heard from constituents of different ages who are concerned about the planned changes to PIP, and who highlight its importance in enabling them to work and to play a full part in society. I want to ask specifically about young people under the age of 25. What mechanisms are being put in place as part of this review to ensure that young people with cancer and other disabilities are considered, and that their distinct experiences are properly accounted for and heard as part of this process?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) just gave us an example—is that people have applied, the outcome has been wrong, and there has been a long, drawn-out process involving an appeal to get to the right answer. I hope that we will be able to develop an assessment that much more frequently comes up with the right answer the first time round, and that recognises where somebody has additional costs as a result of cancer and is therefore eligible for PIP. We will be talking to representatives of people with cancer, including young people, as part of our work, and I hope we will be able to come forward with recommendations that deal with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is very welcome to hear of the work that the Minister is doing. He will know that one of our long-standing concerns is that one of the missing pieces of this puzzle is employers’ attitude and approach to working with disabled people, and some of the misinformation that they might hold about things like PIP. He will know that disabled people often have to make 60% more job applications to get even an interview, and that one in three reports experiencing direct discrimination in the workplace. Can he update us on the response that he has had from employers about the role that they can play in changing the situation and recognising the talent that exists within our disabled communities?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is at the heart of the Keep Britain Working review that Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading at the moment. He produced his report in November, which was directly about what more employers can do to ensure that their workplaces are accessible to disabled people, so that people who run into a health problem or disability in the course of their work do not automatically have to leave work, as too often happens. The reasons for that concern are exactly the ones that my hon. Friend raises: huge talent is too often being wasted.
I am pleased that after Sir Charlie’s report was completed, he started working with 75 vanguard employers to develop the ideas in the report. I understand that the number is now up to about 250; there is a lot of employer enthusiasm here because they recognise how important it is. Quite often, the problem is that employers are not sure what to do in a difficult situation when somebody has a health problem. That review will take us a long way forward on exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Timms review pledges to develop ambitious, evidence-based recommendations that are practical, deliverable and capable of delivering meaningful change. I welcome the interim report. The devolution of social security to Wales is a prime contender, as it would allow the creation and delivery of social protections that better reflect the needs of our communities in Wales, as part of the Welsh benefits system. That is widely supported in Wales, including by disabled people’s organisations. Can the Minister assure me that the Timms review will not let the opportunity for devolution pass?
Sir Stephen Timms
We certainly do not want to let any opportunities from the review pass; it is a one-off groundbreaking review, and we want to make the most of it. This morning, I had a good conversation with the new Minister in Wales, and we have agreed that we will work closely together. It is important that voices from Wales are properly heard in the review. A member of our steering group is a former board member of Disability Wales, and I want to make the most of the expertise and experience from Wales in the course of the work.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his update and his collaborative approach to the co-production process, as well as the time he spent with me and colleagues earlier in the year to discuss the experiences of those living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s. The Minister mentioned that disabled people find the assessment dehumanising and stressful; that is particularly the case for those who live with fluctuating conditions and invisible symptoms, for whom no two days may be the same. Will the Minister provide an update on how the lived realities of those with fluctuating conditions will be better reflected in any new assessment process?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help in the discussions and her continuing interest in the review. Criticisms of the way that the current assessment process handles fluctuating conditions are probably the most frequently aired criticism of how the system works at the moment, and it is important that we come up with something that does that job well. We have talked to a lot to people with Parkinson’s, for example, and yesterday my two co-chairs and I were at the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The need to do the job well for people with fluctuating and degenerative conditions is at the centre of our concern, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do the good job that my hon. Friend wants us to do.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the steering group for their work. Their findings that disabled people find the assessment process dehumanising and stressful reflect the conversations that my constituents have had with me. Paragraph 64 of the review finds that
“the reliance on PIP has likely increased due to difficulty accessing vital services and support, such as community mental health services”
and Access to Work. Does he agree that the reform of disability benefits in the future must go hand in hand with improving those support services, such as by widening Access to Work and, in particular, cutting NHS mental health waiting lists, which are far too long? The Minister referred to falling waiting lists; I gently say to him that while physical waiting lists are falling, mental heath waiting lists have not been falling. The longest waits have increased since last December, and the Government need to get a grip on it.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that the NHS is delivering on all aspects of its work. There is a big problem with long delays and backlogs in the Access to Work scheme. We have recently announced the recruitment of an additional 480 people, which means that the number of people working on Access to Work applications will have more than doubled since the general election. We are confident that that will enable us to eradicate the backlog for Access to Work by September of next year. My hon. Friend is right that all those services need to work well and support people together. That is our aim.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the recognition that, for many people, claiming PIP is not an easy process; it is deeply stressful, particularly reapplications and reassessments or delays on appeal. There are appalling levels of stress in the community as a whole, and I hope that this can be addressed seriously in the future. Page 8 of the interim report mentions that future PIP spending will be within the envelope predicted by the OBR. Does that mean that there is going to be some form of cash limiting for PIP, or does the report accept the principle that personal independence payments—which are incredibly valuable—are based on an assessment of the needs of people, rather than a Treasury-based limit on spending?
Sir Stephen Timms
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the degree of stress involved in the process. I spoke to somebody at a roundtable in Northern Ireland who told me she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the course of her working life, which came as a terrible shock and was a traumatic experience. A few years later, her condition had deteriorated and she had to apply for PIP; she said that the experience of applying was as traumatising as the original diagnosis. The effects that people have suffered are very serious.
The terms of reference for the review require us to stay within the currently projected OBR spending on PIP. There is not a cash limit, but one can project what the spending is going to be. The steering group is constrained to stick within currently predicted spending. I think that there may well be reductions, because if we do all the things that we have been talking about, we can do a better job for both disabled people and the taxpayers whose taxes are paying for the system.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s interim report and the commitment to co-production with deaf and disabled people’s organisations. The report rightly recognises that while PIP is a highly valued benefit, too many people experience claiming it as stressful, dehumanising and simply not fit for purpose. Frontline organisations such as the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK have welcomed that honest diagnosis, but they warn that disabled people remain anxious about where the review is heading. Does the Minister agree that the real test of success will be the final recommendations being recognised as genuinely co-produced and commanding the confidence of those who rely on PIP? The Minister has mentioned that a good system will bring about savings, but can he assure the House that this will be driven by improving support, not by achieving savings?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to organisations like those that my hon. Friend mentioned—the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK—for their support for the interim report. I assure my hon. Friend that the final report will be properly co-produced. It will be led by the steering group that I have referred to, and there is going to be a lot of engagement after the summer around our initial thinking on conclusions, which we will draw up over the summer. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that people will be able to be confident in the conclusions we eventually reach.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I apologise for crossing between you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) earlier.
I thank the Minister for Social Security for his statement, for the interim update, which, as he said, is a rare thing as part of a process, and for his approach to dealing with this complex subject with kindness and compassion and treating disabled people with dignity. They really appreciate that. Nearly 300 of my constituents contacted me about the proposed changes to disability support during this consultation period. They consistently described a system that is too often unfair, distressing and mistrustful of disabled people. Can the Minister explain how today’s proposals will restore confidence among claimants that PIP exists to support disabled people, rather than to challenge their entitlement at every turn, and that those who need it will receive it?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review. He mentions being contacted by 300 of his constituents; as I mentioned, our call for evidence received 38,000 responses, which I was very pleased about. We are doing further work, too. At the moment, Workshops in a Box are being carried out around the country to ensure that we also hear from people who may not be up for or willing to submit a formal reply to a call for evidence. The objective that the hon. Gentleman sets out is absolutely right: I do not think it is necessary for the application process for this benefit to have the hostile and adversarial characteristics of the current one, and we are determined to put that right.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I regret the stigmatising language that we have heard even today—this division between disabled people and taxpayers, as though disabled people do not pay taxes, and a division between those who work and those claiming PIP, when we all know that PIP is used to get people into work and support them overall. It seems that those now being targeted for invidious smearing are young people who are facing mental health issues. I urge my right hon. Friend to publish detailed analysis of that issue as soon as possible to give us a greater understanding of it, so that we can perhaps avoid the stigmatisation of these young people.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am certainly keen to avoid stigmatising anybody. If my right hon. Friend looks at the interim report, he will see that there is quite a lot of evidence specifically on that point. It is very important that that evidence is properly sifted and assessed in the course of our work, and we will do that. We want to remove barriers, because too often young people in particular have started to claim benefits and then the system has abandoned them, which is neither in their interests nor consistent with their aspirations. It is not in the interests of the Government or society, either. We need to support young people to be able to participate in work and in other things by removing the barriers that have stopped them doing that in the past, and that is what we are determined to do.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, including those already suffering the devastating consequences of the cuts to the health component of universal credit, are following the work of the Timms review closely and with trepidation. Like me, they know that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, but is intended as a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability, from food to fuel and transport. Will the Minister ensure that any proposals brought forward to the House are not driven by the desire for short-term cuts that motivated the last two proposals, and that the focus is instead on how people actually experience disability?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can give my hon. Friend exactly the assurance that she seeks: this will be a properly and carefully considered piece of work. She is absolutely right that PIP can be claimed by people who are in work or out of work. When we were having the debates last summer, a lot of people made the point that PIP is what enables them to go to work; without it, they would not be able to get to work. The question that arises in the terms of reference is: what can we do to ensure that in future PIP does a better job of removing the barriers that have stopped people working in the past? We want to bring that about.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The interim report rightly recognises what disabled people have long been saying, which is that PIP is a broken system. What assurances can the Minister give that the recommendations of the final report will be grounded in disabled people’s right to social security, right to independent living and right to participate in society? Will disabled people and their organisations properly shape the next phase of the reforms, rather than merely being consulted on them?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, they will. The co-production approach that we have taken so far will be the approach that we take throughout the review. Over the summer, we will be formulating our initial thoughts about conclusions and recommendations and then, in September or October, we will be discussing them with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations and we will hold events in different parts of the country to ensure that it is disabled people who are shaping the final conclusions that we bring forward.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare that one of my children is in receipt of the disability living allowance. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the interim report. Earlier, we heard—without irony—a list of criticisms from the Opposition about the personal independence payment that they handed over to this Government. Clearly, part of the problem is also the SEND policies and the health service that they handed over to this Government. As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that we need cross-departmental buy-in as part of this process, as part of the SEND review, as part of health reform in the 10-year plan and as part of a review of PIP. Will he commit today to continuing to look at that issue, particularly for young people, and to looking again at whether to raise the age of transfer from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18?
Sir Stephen Timms
On his final point, as my hon. Friend knows, that proposal was consulted on in the Green Paper last year, and we are looking at that. I think he makes a very good point. I can assure him that we are going to be working across Government on exactly the concerns that he raises.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I welcome the interim report and agree that PIP is no longer fit for purpose. However, meaningful reform will succeed only if the DWP adopts the culture of mutual respect that we are seeing through this co-produced process. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that the review will also examine the wider culture in the DWP, which far too often harms the very people it is meant to support?
Sir Stephen Timms
The focus of the review is very tightly on PIP itself. However, as I touched on earlier, I do think that the Department will want to, and will, learn lessons from the success of this approach to date, which I hope will be fully borne out in the final report that we submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn. I think that will be a mechanism for changing the culture in the Department and the way that it and, I hope, the wider Government work.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, his experience and his compassion, and thank the steering group for their work. Walking by on the other side, as others did, is not an option here. We have to get a grip of this broken system, driven by a real focus on ensuring that those with chronic conditions and disabled people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country get the dignity, respect and support that they deserve. As the Minister knows, because I have told him many times, many of my constituents have very loud views on and real experience of this broken system, so will he come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to meet those constituents and hear their views? He will get a very warm Staffordshire welcome if he does so.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. If he would like to drop me a line, I will see how my diary is looking in the next couple of months.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement today and for all the hard work that has gone into getting us to where we are now. The interim report finds very low levels of trust in the legacy scheme that we inherited from the Conservatives. How will the Minister go about rebuilding that trust not only with disabled people and people with long-term conditions, but with the general public, to ensure that there is the understanding and respect that we all think should be part of the system?
Sir Stephen Timms
The key first step is to complete this review in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, and we will be doing that. Then I think it is a question of people seeing what the new system will be and observing in due course how it works. I hope that in that way we can rebuild trust and confidence in the system on the part of both disabled people and taxpayers—recognising the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that there is a big overlap between those two categories.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership on this issue. One of the leading causes of disability, particularly for working-age adults, is stroke. It is a subject I know all too well; my dad had a life-altering stroke at 55, and 10 years later, just days after his 65th birthday, it was a stroke that killed him. During those 10 years, PIP was an absolute lifeline for him. We learned very quickly as a family the importance of rehabilitation, which is why I was so concerned recently when I met representatives of the Stroke Association, who said that just 7% of stroke survivors are receiving the rehabilitation recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in rehabilitation will not only improve people’s mobility and independence but reduce their reliance on PIP?
Sir Stephen Timms
I agree that rehabilitation is very important. Perhaps I should refer my hon. Friend’s point to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I know will be very interested in it as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that when the health service is doing the job that we all want it to do, there will be less of a need to call on PIP, because people’s needs will be dealt with by the health service. I will certainly pass on the important point that he has raised.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the father of a child in receipt of DLA. “Not fit for purpose”, “degrading”, “dehumanising”, “stressful”—the findings of this report reflect what I hear from my constituents. As the Minister moves to the next phase—co-production—will he look at moving to a more personalised, individualised approach? A lot of the review’s findings relate to the application process and this sort of arbitrary gatekeeping around entitlement to money, when all people are asking for is support to live independent, dignified and productive lives.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. Yes, I hope that we will be able to come up with a proposal that will entail greater personalisation. At the moment, for example, the number of different rates of benefit paid out is not very many—it is quite a lumpy system. I think there is a question to be asked about whether something more personalised could do a better job. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Science Diplomacy
Science, innovation and technology Committee
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on our report, “Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy and the global race”. I am pleased to see members of the Committee in the Chamber. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who have supported this inquiry, as well as the many witnesses who gave evidence.
I may have mentioned before that I am proud to be a chartered engineer with over 20 years of experience in industry, and for 16 years, I have been an engineer in the House, but as my friends, family and perhaps too many of my colleagues will attest, I am not a diplomat. In chairing this inquiry, I have learned much about the essential work of our diplomatic service and the international work of so many organisations and institutions, from the Royal Society to our armed forces. I thank them for their contribution. We found—the football analogy I am about to use was in the report even before England’s amazing win over Mexico—that the UK is in the premier league when it comes to scientific strengths and our global diplomatic network, but we do not know where we stand when it comes to science diplomacy. We launched our inquiry in April last year to examine how the UK Government should leverage scientific research and innovation to support its diplomatic goals, growth missions and national security. We held five public sessions and received over 50 written submissions. As the topic is so broad, we chose to look at the issues through three lenses: health and life sciences, quantum, and space. We also chose to focus on the UK Government’s strategy for science diplomacy, and its implications for sovereignty and research security, as part of the wider topic.
First of all, we found that the UK has failed to adapt to the pace of geopolitics. The geopolitical landscape has been turned upside down in recent years. Alongside rapid technological advancement, this has made science diplomacy more important than ever. I will give three quick examples to illustrate this. First, the global talent fund was the UK’s attempt to capitalise on the US retreat from science funding, but as it does not address the huge up-front costs faced by researchers, it is unlikely to have the impact that the Government desired. As of June this year, just 18 researchers had been announced as taking up new roles through the fund. That is not going to move any dials.
Secondly, while the Committee recognises that overseas development assistance spending has been reduced to allow the defence budget to be increased, our report highlights the short-sighted nature of some of the cuts that followed, and the impact on ODA for research and development.
Thirdly, the UK-US pharmaceutical agreement has secured benefits—notably, exemptions from tariffs—but it also appears to have involved significant commitments affecting core elements of UK domestic policy. Although the global nature of the pharmaceuticals sector means that trade negotiations will inevitably have an impact on it, surely decisions about NHS spending, pricing and access to medicines should primarily be driven by the needs of UK patients, and balanced with the sustainability of the life sciences sector.
Our second key finding was that there is a lack of overarching strategy. Witnesses consistently cited the strengths of the UK’s research base. Though we have less than 1% of the worldwide population, we have 6% of global publications and receive one 12th of global citations. We found that the Government have not articulated a coherent strategic framework for science diplomacy, despite those strengths. Such a framework should set out priority partners and technologies, and the intended outcomes of partnerships.
For the six frontier technologies in the digital and technologies sector plan, and for space, the Government should bring forward detailed cross-governmental strategies, accompanied by clear delivery plans. The forthcoming plan for space provides an important opportunity to do that. The report also describes the Government’s approach to international scientific agreements and science diplomacy as “opportunistic”.
Thirdly, we found that in a geopolitical landscape that, as I said, has been turned upside down, the UK is in a global race for sovereign capability, whether it acknowledges it or not. The US’s decision to ban foreigners’ access to Anthropic’s most powerful artificial intelligence models was a watershed moment that proved—to mix metaphors, perhaps—that there is actually a kill switch. The Government must reflect on this when considering our ambitions for secure sovereign capability.
Although the own-collaborate-access framework provides a useful foundation for prioritising the UK’s approaches to critical technology, it is applied at too high a level to actually influence and guide decision making. There are so many definitions of “sovereignty” circulating. That impedes our ability to give our international stakeholders clear signals, and prevents businesses from getting the signals that they need to apply their resources—skills, investment, research and development—to the technologies that the Government will procure on a sovereign basis.
The UK is highly successful at generating world-leading research and innovation, but less so in turning that strength into the growth of high-tech domestic companies. Too many UK-developed technologies are forced to look abroad to scale. The private sector needs clearer investment signals. Yesterday at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s evidence session, the Secretary of State emphasised frontier models, computer chips and compute as parts of the AI tech stacks that she would like to have sovereign capability in. We need more clarity like that.
To finish, we have four areas of recommendation. On global policy, our report calls on the Government to strengthen the UK’s international science and technology position through a clearer strategy, greater investment and improved resilience. On strategy, we call on the Government to publish a coherent science diplomacy strategy, with clear criteria for decisions on science partnerships, and with explicit strategies for engagement with the US and the EU, Commonwealth partners, other middle powers and competitors such as Russia and China. On sovereignty, the Government should define what “technological sovereignty” means when it comes to critical technologies and particularly AI, identify key dependencies in supply chains, and use that analysis to guide investment and procurement decisions. To support innovation, we recommend improving scale-up capital, expanding specialist investment funds and using public procurement more strategically to help UK technology firms grow. Finally, on research security, and with the recent Biobank leak in mind, our report calls for stronger research security guidance, improved information sharing between Government and institutions such as universities, and a cross-Government plan to develop a sustainable domestic skills pipeline in critical scientific and technological fields.
The UK’s excellence in research and innovation is a distinct strategic advantage. To sustain it, we urge the Government to outline a science diplomacy strategy. Through such a strategy, we can ensure that science diplomacy remains a driver of progress, as well as a pillar of soft power.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I start by thanking the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and its entire membership for the publication of a very interesting and timely report. Business, academia and the whole tech sector needs clarity, in some ways more than anything else. Does the Chair share my concerns, which are stated quite well in the report, that
“The government has repeatedly outlined that building sovereign capability is a ‘critical priority’ for the UK but has not been clear on exactly what this means or how it might be measured”?
There are lots of different definitions of sovereignty being bandied around, which mean lots of different things in different contexts. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need some clarity on what exactly it means in this sector when we use the word “sovereignty”?
Dame Chi Onwurah
It is one of the thrusts of the report that we need greater clarity on sovereignty. This is not an academic debate—we do not need philosophical discussions on what sovereignty may or may not mean—but as the shadow Minister indicated, on tech stacks, particular technologies and their supply chains, we need to understand what we are trying to achieve, so that business, academia and Government, and particularly Government procurement, can move in that direction.
It is interesting, because it was almost implicit that we did not want to say where we were looking for sovereignty, or where we did not have it, as that might alert our competitors to weaknesses. I think China and Russia probably know our weaknesses quite well, and it is our tech start-ups and our great businesses and scale-ups that need to better understand our intended strengths, so that they can support them.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I welcome this very interesting and timely report, and I particularly welcome the recognition that one of the barriers to developing or strengthening our sovereignty is the lack of access to deep capital markets at the later stages of start-ups’ development. Will the Chair tell the House a little bit more about what the Committee found on that, and how she thinks the Government can help make sure that companies that want to rapidly grow in the UK can get resource in the UK, rather than in the United States?
Dame Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend highlights an important point in the report on investment and access to it, particularly for sovereign capabilities. That may be for what we call deep tech, which is tech that requires a long-term investment and that will not yield a return tomorrow, or even next year. We recommend supporting the setting up of funds that are dedicated to that, because it takes particular skills and particular access to investment vehicles to support that kind of long-term funding.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the report, and for all the hard work her Committee has put into it. I was very interested in the section about space. Does she share my pleasure in the announcement today that the SaxaVord space station is likely to have a launch of a rocket within the next three weeks?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I think it is brilliant. SaxaVord got some investment from the UK Government.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
In addition to acknowledging the investment from the UK Government, may I ask whether my hon. Friend’s Committee agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair, that we should have a Minister for space in Government? That is because we recognise the cross-cutting nature of many of the issues that face companies that want to be involved in space, and the very many jurisdictions with which they have to negotiate. I think of maritime agencies, as well as Government Departments, local jurisdictions and planning. It would be helpful to have an indication of her view.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend and Select Committee Chair for that excellent question, and congratulate Scotland on the proposed launch. The Committee chose space as one of the lenses through which to look at science diplomacy and all the issues associated with it. Though we did not recommend a Minister for space per se, evidence to the Committee highlighted the confusion about where the responsibility for space lies. Space is increasingly important in defence, and it is an area in which we already see covert, and sometimes explicit, conflict. There is a huge defence programme to consider. It is economically incredibly important as well; we see the role of Starlink and other private sector providers in Ukraine in supporting communications, and the roll-out here. This issue is also important when it comes to negotiations on space debris and all sorts of matters, and it relates to planning permission and domestic issues as well. My hon. Friend is certainly right to advocate for greater clarity on the responsibilities for space.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am proud to represent Shoreditch, which has a lot of tech start-ups, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s report. Following on from the question from, and answer to, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), will she expand on how we can get that money into tech businesses, so that they can grow and develop? A lot of my businesses find that the machinery of Whitehall is slow and clunky, and they can get better investment quicker from other jurisdictions and sources. What does my hon. Friend hope that the Government can do, in relation to setting up the new fund that her Committee proposes? Does she have any faith that the Government will be able to move at the pace needed for those tech companies to grow, and to stay in the UK?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend and Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question. She highlights one of the principal concerns regarding technology-driven growth, which we reported on in our report “Flying blind: innovation, growth and the regions”: the access to capital, particularly for the kind of tech start-ups that we are discussing, which require long-term investment.
One thing we should regret most is DeepMind going to the US to form Google’s excellent AI base, rather than remaining as a UK-owned company.
How can we get better long-term investment? I recommend encouraging the growth of specialist funds with deep sectorial expertise. In achieving investment goals, we cannot get around the need to have technological knowledge and to attract international talent and technology leaders. The Government should also use their procurement of UK start-ups and scale-ups, because nothing is so valuable to a company as an actual contract signed with the Government, who are generally known to pay on time.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I am very happy to complete this hat trick of Scottish colleagues. I thank my hon. Friend for this excellent report, and I agree about the need to focus on science diplomacy, which is an opportunity for the UK; we should be much more ambitious about what we do.
As a former member of a science and innovation network overseas, running a team that wonderfully created the UK’s first trilateral water research project in the middle east, I put on record the great work that our science teams are doing around the world. Will she say more about opportunities to increase or prioritise work between science, technology and innovation network staff in embassies?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record how much the work of the SINs, which I now think are called the SATs, or something—
Dame Chi Onwurah
Yes, the SINs and the SAINTs. The name may have changed, and there are concerns about the level of support they are receiving from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but there was unanimous support for the work they did. There are countless examples of that support having enabled tech companies to invest in the UK, and UK tech companies to identify and address attractive markets across the world. The SINs, under whatever name, are a successful example of our science diplomacy network.
Point of Order
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance following remarks made outside this House by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) that have caused profound offence to the community I represent. To describe the Dunblane tragedy as “one murder” diminishes what happened to 16 children and their teacher and the suffering of everyone whose lives were changed forever in March 1996.
The people of Dunblane responded not with division but with dignity, compassion and a determination that no other community should endure such horror. It is because of their courage, and the united action of this House, that this country has some of the strongest firearms laws in the world and an ongoing cross-party approach to ensuring that those protections will not be weakened. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how this House can ensure that the victims of Dunblane are always remembered with the accuracy, respect and compassion they deserve, and that Members reflect on their conduct in this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter and for confirming that he has informed the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. The Chair is not responsible for what Members say in the Chamber or outside it, but he has put his point on the record.
Bill Presented
Backbench Business
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Abtisam Mohamed, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, the Government for allocating time for it, Members from across the House for supporting the application, and 32,000 constituents for writing to their MPs and asking them to attend and speak on this important issue.
Two embattled generations have grown up in the ashes of the collapse of the Oslo accords. What little hope was cultivated then—the promise of two states, of dignity and of democratic rights for all—has been replaced with abject misery. This is how injustice survives: not through one dramatic moment, but through gradual acceptance, the lowering of expectations and the repetition of the same statements while the reality on the ground continues to change.
For years, successive British Governments have said that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, that settlements undermine peace and that they threaten the viability of a two-state solution, yet the settlements continue to expand. I pose to the Government the simple question that sits at the heart of this debate: if settlements are illegal, why have we not banned trade with them outright? What exactly is it that we are waiting for? Why do we continue to maintain a status quo that has rewarded Israeli expansionism while punishing Palestinian aspiration—a status quo that has expected Palestinians to quietly accept that their humanity, rights and self-determination must always play second fiddle?
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech; she always holds up a moral compass to us all in this place. Does she agree that those who deny access to medical treatment to children as young as four—who, while waiting for medical treatment, get to the point of near-fatal dehydration—and those who deny cancer patients in their thousands access to medical care in these settlements, are and should be defined as terrorists? If these settlers should be defined as terrorists, is it not incumbent on us and this Government to strain every diplomatic and every technological sinew to ensure that not one single pound of our money is spent enabling this behaviour?
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a powerful point.
Some time ago, the Palestinian ambassador, Dr Husam Zomlot, reminded parliamentarians that Gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank are not separate issues, but all parts of the same national story. They may be separated, occupied and besieged, but they are all connected by the same struggle for freedom. Together, they are the beating heart of one state of Palestine—a state that the UK, our Government, has quite rightly taken a historic step to recognise. Yet, although we have recognised Palestine in its entirety, we have failed to make that recognition a meaningful reality through any follow-up action.
The expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank has seen almost 500,000 acres of Palestinian land appropriated since 1967. In the last year alone, more than 120 checkpoints and obstacles have been installed to control Palestinian movement. More recently, the E1 settlement plan, which was approved by the Israeli Government, includes just short of 3,500 housing units. It includes the construction of a new neighbourhood, a new employment and commercial zone, and a new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. She points out that Conservative and Labour Governments have for decades recognised these settlements as illegal, and now things are worse than ever. We have recognised Palestine, which is a good thing, but with the expansion plan and the promised further occupation, it is surely inconsistent for us not to have a complete ban on illegal settlement goods. If not now, when?
Abtisam Mohamed
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
The new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only, will reroute Palestinians and seal off the E1 corridor permanently. This is a state-wide strategy that uses every civilian and military means to appropriate land, isolate Palestinians and make a Palestinian state impossible to realise.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. As somebody who first voted in this place to recognise Palestine in 2014, I think it is absolutely imperative that we realise a two-state solution if we are ever to see peace and prosperity for either Israel or Palestine. Does she agree that the very conduct she is talking about puts that two-state dream at risk, and that that is why it must stop?
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why it is essential that we are having this debate and that there must be a ban on trade. I will not take further interventions now because I have to make progress.
The annexation has accelerated so fast that today 750,000 settlers are believed to be living on occupied Palestinian land. Their presence each year robs the Palestinian economy, which is largely agricultural, of over £38 billion. Water in the west bank is extracted disproportionately to sustain Israel and Israeli settlers. Seventy per cent of grazing land in the occupied territories is systematically denied to Palestinians. Olive orchards are regularly set on fire. Toxic waste is dumped on their crops to destroy their economic future—I could go on.
Between 2009 and 2020, Israeli settlers in area C received 22,000 building permits; for Palestinians, the figure was just 66. When Palestinians build their homes, their presence is rendered illegal and they are often slapped with demolition orders. Settlers, however, can have their illegal outposts given full legal status by the Israeli Government. In the last two years alone, 3,500 Palestinians have been displaced in the west bank. That is over 80 communities. This is an Israeli Government-backed policy reaching far and wide across the west bank.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I did give her advance notice that because of the rescheduling of the debate, I would seek to intervene on her. As she knows, I visited the area a year ago, and the whole situation is unacceptable; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has already referred to the current circumstances as “settlement terrorism”. Does she agree that taking action on this is about not just cast-iron sanctions on trade but financial services and visas, including visas of British citizens who serve in the Israel Defence Forces?
Abtisam Mohamed
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The first act should be that we seek to stem trade from the settlements; the other points are valid ones that must be explored.
Let us imagine two children born in the same land: one is born in an Israeli settlement; the other is born in a Palestinian community—perhaps one of the 58 refugee camps scattered across the nearby region. They may be separated by only a few miles, but they will grow up under entirely different systems. One will enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement, infrastructure investment, dependable access to healthcare, free-flowing water, the right to be educated, legal protections and state support. The other may face military restrictions, checkpoints, demolitions, land seizures and profound uncertainty about their future. They will both have the same dreams, the same hopes, the same potential, yet one will grow up benefiting from a system of privilege while the other experiences the consequences of occupation. These two children will be governed by two different sets of laws, one civilian and one military. I am sure everyone will be able to guess which child is which. These waves of injustice will keep flowing, over families, over communities, over generations. How is it possible that two children in the west bank can have such different experiences, yet still there is denial that it is apartheid?
Across Europe, action is starting to take shape. Ireland has moved forward towards a ban on settlement goods. Spain has already implemented a ban. The Belgian Council of Ministers is expected to agree the detail of a ban tomorrow and for it to be in place by the end of this year. Belgium has also asked the European Commission to bring proposals to the Foreign Ministers meeting on 13 July. The Netherlands has begun moving beyond a policy of simple discouragement and has tabled a legal instrument to ban settlement trade. These countries have looked at the same legal questions and the same settlement expansions. They have the same international obligations as we do, but they have concluded that words alone are not enough. The UK remains hesitant, which should concern us all because our Government do have the tools to act. The issue is not capability, but political will.
Some will argue that it is too complex to enforce a ban and that our system of not allowing tariff preferences for settlement goods works perfectly well. It does not work, and it puts us on a collision course with our international legal obligations. Ministers cannot in good faith say that it is impossible to ban settlement trade, not when the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel already depends on identifying whether goods qualify as being of Israeli origin.
Complexity is not an excuse to hide from our international obligations. In fact, the complexity is why a ban is needed. Settlement goods are routinely mislabelled, mixed into supply chains and rerouted to obscure their origin. According to a major Global Echo study, 17% of Israeli goods that are either sold, supplied or advertised in the UK are actually from illegal settlements. In the last week alone, my office has identified products from 12 different companies based in the occupied territories being sold online or physically in our shops and markets. Most of them are marked as Israeli products, so the differentiation system we depend on does not stop the goods entering this country; it only allows us to slap a tariff charge on them. Those tariff charges actually mean nothing because the Israeli Government offer incentives to settlers. They give out millions in grants to companies to cover the costs of doing business from an illegal settlement.
I remind the Minister of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 2024. It includes an obligation not to aid or assist the illegal occupation, and to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that sustain it. When I have written to companies such as Barclays and JCB about their links to Israeli settlements, they offer very little concern, but if our Government were to take stronger action to compel them not to do business in illegal settlements, we would see that action. We would see them sever their links with illegal settlements.
Others say that European countries find it difficult to enforce their bans, and that may make our job even more difficult. However, the question is not about new enforcement powers, but about utilising existing ones. There are enough instruments already to seriously disrupt illegal activity wherever it is happening. I need only point to the successes of legislation such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, through which much more complex sanctions have been applied in much tougher circumstances. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not say that sanctions were too complicated; we relished identifying Russian-linked assets. We did not say that economic pressure was pointless because Russia would just ignore it; we acted because we rightly believed in the principles at stake. What answer does the Minister have to the accusations of double standards that we constantly hear?
If the Government believe that international law has meaning, it should be applied consistently. In years to come, will we have the words to explain that we saw the warning signs, we recognised the damage being done, and still we chose to hesitate? Will we really be able to look back and say that we did enough? There are only so many times that Members can hear the same holding responses repeated at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. The Government say that they support international law, that settlements are illegal and that they support a viable Palestinian state, so what does it mean if we can identify the problem and yet we refuse to take the necessary steps, and refuse to move beyond discouragement and expressions of concern?
The time to legislate for a ban on trade with illegal settlements was decades ago, and now it may be too late to do anything. We must demonstrate that Britain’s commitment to international law is measured not only in what we say, but in what we do, because if settlements are illegal, Britain should not be trading with them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on the tone of her speech, and I agree with her motion.
I could give a speech on dry, legalistic grounds, which in themselves are completely obvious, to show why we should have a trade ban with illegal settlements—because of the Geneva convention, or because of the fact that these settlements rely on international trade. The case is overwhelming, but I want to be more emotional.
I am a Conservative MP. I am not the sort of person who goes on marches, or who chants about a Palestine from the river to the sea. I am also realistic about the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies. I am profoundly philosemitic, and profoundly immersed in Jewish culture—I read the Old Testament every day and that sort of thing. I have been to the site of the music festival; I have wept at the appalling pogrom against our Jewish brothers. So I am emotional, and I am entirely in favour of the right of Jewish people to defend themselves.
But this is so different. I have been to the west bank; I have seen what is going on there. This is profoundly wrong. People who have merely tilled their land for 2,000 years are being bullied and forced out. Even when we went there, we were confronted with armed settlers. This is outrageous. The whole House should cry out against it with one voice, and the Government should take action. That is why the motion is so important.
I am appealing to my Jewish friends, and to so many good, honest, reasonable people who detest what is going on at the moment. They are entirely in tune with Jewish culture, but unfortunately the Netanyahu Government are bound by right-wing extremists, and by people who care nothing about human rights and who have this weird and ridiculous notion that because 2,000 years ago that land was perhaps held by Jewish people—we are not even certain of that—they have a right to go in and force out people and destroy their lives. I appeal to moderate Jewish people: this must stop.
The Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow, couldn’t they? And if the whole world acted with one voice, I think we could put sufficient pressure on them. But just imagine, dear colleagues, if this stopped tomorrow. I will leave you with this thought: if there were no more illegal settlements, if no existing settlements were expanded, and if the Palestinian people were allowed to live in peace and freedom like everybody else, would not the skies lift? Would not Israeli people feel that they could live in peace? We cannot have endless war. Empires come to an end. The Israeli Government cannot just destroy the Palestinian people with the misguided notion that that will give them security. It will give them no security; there will be endless war, endless hatred. Let us in the House say that we believe profoundly in a unity of the human spirit. There should be no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian—we are one people, and we demand that the Palestinian people, like all other peoples on Earth, have a right to their own nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The Father of the House got the timing bang on without my having to put a time limit on him, but I will now put a five-minute limit on speeches.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for her powerful speech, and it is an absolute honour to follow the Father of the House.
On the west bank, settlement expansion continues in violation of UN Security Council resolution 2334. That includes the E1 project that aims to cut the west bank in half, and separate East Jerusalem. Last month, Israel approved 2,000 settlement housing units across the west bank, bringing the total approved this year to over 6,000. Those settlements continue to destroy historic Palestinian communities, any chance of long-term peace and a two-state solution. They are also accompanied by staggering levels of violence, and co-ordinated attacks on civilians and religious sites, facilitated by a culture of impunity.
According to the UN, there has been an average of six attacks every day against Palestinians in the west bank since the start of 2026. A recent report from the UN Secretary-General highlighted a steep rise in attacks by settlers on Palestinian children, reportedly often supported by Israeli security forces. It is part of a surge of settler aggression across the west bank, driven by the dynamics of Israeli politics.
We know that elections in Israel must be held by the end of October at the latest, and as things stand, Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right bloc is facing the prospect of defeat. The radical settler elements in the coalition are scrambling to impose facts on the ground in the west bank before the elections. Throughout 2025 and the first half of this year, the creeping de facto annexation of the west bank has increased greatly, driven primarily by farm outposts, which require none of the planning and construction work of older settlements. According to a report published on Monday by Kerem Navot, and its fellow activist organisation Peace Now, farm outposts now control more than 100,000 hectares, which is 18% of the entire west bank. Nearly one third of that wholesale seizure took place in 2025.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for laying out her remarks so clearly—much better than I could have done—and to the Father of the House. Emotion rightly comes into this debate. We are not just legislators, and we need to bring that sense of feeling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) is right to highlight not just that the settlements are happening, but that the aggression, backed up by the Israeli Government, exacerbates the issue. Does she have any hope that, realistically, any election in Israel will change that, and does she agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that we need to act internationally to resolve this? I do not have faith that an election in Israel will stop this happening.
Harpreet Uppal
I agree, and I will come on to that point in a moment.
Recourse to the law has been cut off almost entirely for Palestinians, particularly since another settler extremist, Ben-Gvir, was made National Security Minister. The violence is horrific, and it must end. The Government have been clear that we oppose the expansion of the settlements, which are a violation of international law, and I welcome the sanctions on individual settlers and settler networks that the Foreign Secretary announced last month. However, my constituents have been clear that we must go further.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as the ban on trade with settlements that we are debating, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government now need to spell out exactly how they will seek to dissuade those who might engage in the E1 project, which would be so damaging to the prospects of a two-state solution?
Harpreet Uppal
I agree. We must hold Israel to account for its actions, and we must end all trade with the illegal settlements. Those settlements do not build themselves; they require money and trade, and they are backed by the Israeli Government. That is the only way we can ensure that we are not financially legitimising violations of international law.
I understand that there are complexities in banning that trade, but I share the belief of many of my constituents, and other Members, that the violence has continued at a rate that demands a proportionate response from the international community. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions the Government have had with international partners to better understand their plans to ban trade with illegal settlements? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, bans are in the process of being introduced in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Spain. No law is perfect—absolutely not—but that does not mean we should not work on banning trade with the illegal settlements.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech. She talks about international law; does she agree with me on the importance of applying it consistently? In particular, given that the UK has rightly imposed sanctions and trade restrictions elsewhere—notably on Russia—does she agree that the same measures need to be applied to the Israeli Government’s illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?
Harpreet Uppal
I do agree.
The statistics that I referred to must remain in our minds as we focus on illegal settlements, which are rapidly eroding the prospects for peaceful co-existence and a viable independent Palestinian state. Finally, I say to the Minister that it is imperative that we avoid the real prospect of doing too little, too late.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
In the interests of time, I will focus my speech on four key areas, having waited nearly 10 months for a response to a letter that I sent to the Minister in which he neglected to answer the questions posed.
First is the issue of complexity. The Government argue that it is just too complex to differentiate between goods produced in green-line Israel, legitimate Palestinian goods and those from illegal settlements. However, the Minister is acutely aware that the UK free trade agreement with Israel already requires settlement goods and those from green-line Israel to be differentiated. At the same time, the UK’s trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority means that Palestinian goods have completely different import codes, so the UK should already be distinguishing between goods. Therefore, why is it too complex to implement a ban on illegal settlement goods when, as was mentioned, the Government can apply complex trade sanctions relating to territory in Ukraine illegally occupied by Russia, including an outright ban on goods imported from Crimea?
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I, too, have engaged in written parliamentary questions and oral questions to try to understand why it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between goods from the illegal settlements, which the Minister for the middle east—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—said quite clearly should not be traded, and goods from Israel proper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as long as that differentiation is not made effectively, there is no incentive for Israel to differentiate its goods and to stop hiding settlement goods behind those from Israel proper?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I assure the Father of the House that the passion he feels finds a strong echo in my part of the world, where the cultural memory of being driven off the land is still very strong.
The Father of the House said that he would avoid dry, legalistic points, but I agree with the hon. Member that that is what the UK Government are doing: using dry, legalistic points. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Government should do as other countries have done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out, and go all-out by imposing a complete ban and then dealing with the legalities afterwards?
Chris Law
I agree with the hon. Member, who pre-empts a point that I am about to come to. Again, the options are there. The Government are either unwilling or unable to deliver what other countries are already preparing to do—including bans—and to look at legalities later.
Secondly, touching on the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), the Government repeatedly claim that other countries have been unable to bring forward a ban. That, too, is nonsense. For example, Spain is implementing a ban, and the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland are enacting legislation to do similar. Again, are the Government either unable or simply unwilling to abide by their own obligations under international law?
Thirdly, I welcome the UK Government’s position—after having been dragged by their own Back Benchers—on recognising the state of Palestine, but we all know that that is utterly meaningless if there is not a viable state where the Palestinians can live.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this very important debate. May I put on record my constituents’ disgust at the actions of Israel in these settlements? Does the hon. Member agree with the Foreign Secretary’s use of the term “settler terrorism”, and that, if that is what we are seeing, we need a much more robust response by Government? If settlements are illegal, the goods are illegal, and we should not see them in this country.
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I represent the city of Dundee, which is twinned with the city of Nablus in the west bank—I am also a member of that twinning association—and I have had thousands of constituents write of their disgust at the continued trade we do with illegal settlements and their continued expansion.
Thirdly, as I said, I welcome recognition of the state of Palestine, but that is meaningless unless there is a land to live in. While the Government permit the existence of illegal settlements and continue to trade with them, they must acknowledge that that makes their stated policy of a two-state solution unachievable. After all, in case there were any doubt, Israel’s Defence Minister Katz stated that settlement expansion was
“a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine, yet that occupation is increasing before our very eyes. Given that the UK is still supplying arms to Israel and has not introduced sanctions similar to those imposed on Russia, we are obviously not doing enough, so what else can the Government do to give the Palestinian people their land back?
Chris Law
I welcome my Celtic cousin’s remarks and I agree with her. On arms sales, one suggestion would be a recommitment to the Committees on Arms Export Controls that we once had and that I served on for seven years, which were dissolved two or three years ago. Such a Committee needs to be reinstated and what better opportunity than now, when we really need to scrutinise and examine what is being exported and in whose name.
Returning to the two-state solution, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that as a result of the E1 settlement expansion plan
“there will be no Palestinian state.”
No need for clues, no need for second-guessing. I put it to the Minister yet again: are the Government unable or unwilling to take action? Their inaction only emboldens further settlement expansion and makes the UK complicit in Israel’s criminal behaviour against the Palestinian people.
My fourth and final point is that it is all very well for the Minister to issue his condemnation, for the UK to
“call on the Government to reverse these decisions”
and for the Foreign Secretary to be “very clear” with Israeli Ministers, but without actions, as a result of the Israeli Government repeatedly ignoring these words, nothing will ever be achieved. Dithering must end and action must begin. What we are witnessing is the trading in misery, mayhem and murder of Palestinians, and their homeland continuously being stolen from them. When we do nothing, we are telling Israel that we support it wholeheartedly, and it shows how little we value Palestinian life. That is unconscionable and it is certainly not in my name or my party’s name, or those of the many thousands—indeed, millions—across these islands.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and speaking with so much passion about an issue that concerns us all.
The ever-increasing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal—each and every one of them. Their purpose is clear: they are a means by which the Israeli Government can encourage land grabs, separate one Palestinian village from another, prevent the villagers accessing water and other utilities, and make it more difficult to map out a contiguous Palestinian state. They are also a way of intimidating Palestinians who find themselves surrounded by these fast growing and well-defended settlements.
The level of violence instigated by the settlers has increased; more than 1,700 settler attacks causing causalities or property damage have been recorded across 270 Palestinian communities in the west bank in 2025 alone. On a recent visit to Israel and Palestine, our delegation saw the scale of the encroachment, the plans for further, larger settlements, and heard about examples of violence and intimidation for ourselves.
We visited the village of Umm al-Khair, where Awdah Hathaleen was shot and killed last summer. Eyewitnesses and bodycam footage suggests that the perpetrator, who has never been charged, was a settler already sanctioned by the UK Government. While we sat in the open, speaking with villagers and playing football with the children, an IDF vehicle stopped outside our meeting and two, fully armed soldiers got out, had a casual look as they passed and slowly walked on, before returning the way they came. That was a minor incident, but let us imagine that it was our life, and we knew that the people living at the end of the street wanted our house and our land, and would do whatever it took to get it, with the full backing of their Government.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Having been to the west bank many years ago, I know that that is not a new thing. Does the hon. Lady agree that the use by the IDF of artificial intelligence machine guns, which are trained on people using sponge-tipped bullets and tear gas, is a way of dehumanising Palestinian people as an attempt to make people abandon their homes? We should be working with international colleagues to stop these new technologies being used in civilian spaces.
Patricia Ferguson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I know that there have been such examples in Gaza, too. I raised that in a Westminster Hall debate almost two years ago, and I was reassured by the Minister that none of those drones are being produced in this country, which is at least a start.
It is also clear that sexual violence is being used as a method of intimidating and humiliating women and girls in Palestinian villages. Some 70% of displaced families cite sexualised violence as the decisive reason for leaving their homes. Some 41 new settlements in the west bank were approved in 2025, and smaller unauthorised outposts are becoming an increasing feature on the landscape. Let us be clear: the settlements we are talking about are an integral part of the Israeli economic system. European imports of settlement products outweigh imports from Palestine, and we cannot as a country allow that situation to continue.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out very clearly the illegality of the settlements on the west bank, and the Geneva convention is very clear on this point. There are reports that properties on the west bank are now being advertised for sale, which is absolutely despicable. Does she share my outrage that the Advertising Standards Authority has been silent on this point until now?
Patricia Ferguson
I absolutely share that outrage, and I will mention it later in my contribution.
We cannot as a country allow this situation to continue. We are out of step with so many of our European partners. We have declared Palestinian statehood, which is great, but we owe it to the people of that state to ensure, in whatever ways we can, that it can function as a state. Increasingly, we are seeing the economy of these settlements moving from agriculture into tourism, real estate, financial services, construction, transport, digital platforms and logistics. Any action we take must be applicable across the entire range of goods and services, and must cover any goods and services that facilitate, support or benefit economically these illegal settlements. A ban that simply covered agricultural products, for example, would just encourage the movement of activity into those other areas.
We know that existing restrictions on trade have been neutralised, in effect. The Israeli Government operate a reimbursement scheme in respect of EU customs duties, and settlement goods are often being routed through Israel for repacking. As colleagues have said, what we need is an outright ban on the importation of settlement goods and on advertising such goods, too. If we cannot do that, we should ban Israeli goods until they can prove that they do not come from settlements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, if not now, when?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and it is always a pleasure to hear the gentle Yorkshire accent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) raised in fierce defence of peace, justice and international law.
Colleagues, let us make no mistake: while this country does need to rebuild its physical defences, in the end our defence lies in international law and the set of rules that we created after the second world war to decide how countries should peaceably settle their disputes. At the heart of the problem of international law at the moment sits the plight of the Palestinians, and if they sit at the heart of the problem, so do we. This debate is so important today because it is not just about the Palestinians; it is also about we Britons, the world we live in and the way we want the world to operate when it is in dispute.
As has been illustrated in the debate so far, nobody in this Chamber believes that the way the Palestinians have to live at the moment is acceptable. Nobody who has stood in the middle of Hebron and seen Palestinians living in cages or watched them being dragged from their homes, their olive trees uprooted, run over with cars and detained without charge; nobody who has seen the guns, the checkpoints, the walls, the UN signs saying where people can and cannot go or the enormous so-called settlements—that makes them seem somehow quaint, like “Little House on the Prairie”, but they are fortresses, forcibly invading and stealing other people’s land; and more recently, nobody who has watched these psychopathic settlers, though they are more like terrorists, roaming across the west bank, terrorising innocent Palestinian families on a daily basis and setting ablaze entire villages, can think that this is acceptable. Yet our country still sells them bulldozers, buys their goods and sells them financial services, and by those means, we financially support and help sustain this appalling situation, while hiding behind the fig leaf of complexity.
Therein lies a mystery that, I must confess, I have not been able to understand over the last couple of years. A third of the Labour party has put its name to a letter calling for a ban on trade with the settlements, yet the Government still do not move on this. Other countries across the world are instituting, or have instituted, bans. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, the complexity argument falls away when we look at Crimea. A ban is not too complex for Spain, Ireland or other countries. Presumably, it was not too complicated for the civil servants who drafted the ban on trade with Crimea, or any of the other trade bans we have used, with effect, over the years.
As the Trade Minister will know, for other reasons to do with trade, we have insisted on the labelling of goods. We have even gently warned businesses off goods from settlements. We heard stentorian words in the last statement—“Take care in trading; there may be legal risk”—but the Government have done everything except the obvious, which is to just ban that trade. The question I am left asking is: why? Why the reluctance? Why the hesitation? Nobody is buying the complexity argument; we do not buy it in any other circumstance of trade. If we want to ban modern slavery, or goods produced by forced labour, we oblige businesses that are importing to prove that they have not acquired goods produced in that way.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for his speech. Maybe I can answer his question. Perhaps it is because of a nostalgia for an Israel that no longer exists—an Israel that made the desert bloom. We now have a state of Israel that routinely breaks human rights law, busts human law, and creates a situation in which it is accused of genocide before the ICJ. This is not a state that anyone in this House, let alone on the Labour Benches, should have any sympathy for, because it undermines our ability to hold up international law. When we think about it, the state that now exists is ultimately one that everyone in this House should be able to condemn wholeheartedly.
Kit Malthouse
Strangely enough, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is probably the first time in our political careers that we have agreed. He puts his finger on the point that I am trying to make. This dispute involves our own security. We do not have to be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel to take that view, just pro-British, which everybody in this House should be, first and foremost. That involves being pro-international law, pro-peace and pro-justice; the dispute goes to the heart of that. He put his finger on the point that I was coming to. Nobody is buying the idea that the argument is practical, Minister.
Kit Malthouse
I know, but I ask the Minister not to patronise us all by standing up at the end of the debate and pretending that this is all too complicated, which I am afraid is what his ministerial colleagues have said to us before.
We know that the argument against a ban is not a legal one; that has been proven time and again. Indeed, we have supported resolutions at the UN and used our position on the Security Council to say that it is not a legal issue. I am left with the only other option, which is that the decision must be political with a capital “P”. I am afraid that is the most appalling thing to contemplate. Either we fear consequences from other countries, such as the United States or whoever it might be, or we believe it is in our national interest to recognise that Palestinian self-determination and Palestinian lives are disposable in the face of that political decision.
Even worse, it may be that we just do not care. It may be that at the higher echelons of political command, whether it is in No. 10 or the Foreign Office, they really just do not care. They think, “If we squint a bit, make some statements from the Front Bench and have a couple of sanctions here and there, in the end, the caravan will move on, and nobody will care.” I am afraid that until Ministers realise that this is not some kind of complicated chess game across the world, but a matter of our security, our interests and our morality, we will not make any progress.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing today’s debate, and thank Members from all parties for the powerful speeches we have heard. There is clearly cross-party support for the proposition we are debating. I recognise the work that the Government have done, supporting the Palestinians, whether it is targeted sanctions, aid, or recognition of the state of Palestine. However, we must be clear that the UK already recognises that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. We would oppose the illegal occupation by force of any country, and we must do so in Palestine, too. As in Russian-occupied Ukraine, so too here.
More than 750,000 Israeli settlers now live in settlements on the west bank and in East Jerusalem, and there is continued expansion every week, supported by the Israeli Government. That means the demolition of Palestinian homes, the forced displacement of communities, restrictions on movement and the annexation of territory. Save the Children, a charity I worked for before being elected, warns that settler violence has reached “unprecedented” levels, with 1,600 attacks on Palestinians in 2025, attacks on schools, and children facing physical violence on their way to and from school. I remember visiting Palestinian refugee camps and meeting children displaced by Israeli settlers. Those children are the victims of terrorism. The Government’s recent sanctions against a limited number of settlers are a welcome step, but they are insufficient, given the scale of expansion we see. Be in no doubt: the objective of establishing these illegal settlements is to render an independent Palestinian state unviable. The method is terrorism, expropriation, violence and intimidation, and the outcome will be that the two-state solution that this House has long called for will be impossible.
I will make two final points. First, trade is important, and bans should not be undertaken lightly or as a gesture. We all recognise the value of deep and complex trade relationships with other countries, both for our economy and prosperity, and so that our societies engage with and understand each other. However, trade relies on rules that are respected—on a system that is rules-based. Our constituents are consumers, and in a free market, they rely on the Government to ensure that trade rules are observed and that their purchases are not making terrorism and instability profitable.
Vikki Slade
Has the hon. Member seen today’s news that the EU is now considering a trade ban, and does he have a comment on it? If it is good enough for other countries, and if it is now good enough for the EU, it should definitely be good enough for the UK.
Chris Murray
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not just in the UK that people are recognising that Israel is crossing multiple lines; it is across the world, so we must act. As others have said, countries such as Ireland and Spain are taking the decision to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements. We must too, and now is the time to do so.
Secondly, it would be impossible for me to overstate the importance of this issue to my constituents in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. In my two years as an MP, I have never been asked by constituents to speak in a debate as many times as I have been asked to speak in today’s debate, so I make this speech in their name. The time is long overdue for a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. The UK must comprehensively ban all trade in goods and services with settlements in the occupied territories.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped.
The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too.
We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said:
“at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.]
Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership?
The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member is doing an excellent job of expressing the moral outrage shared by constituents from Herefordshire to Sunderland to Sheffield, but does she agree that if it is possible for international groups to find origin fraud relating to goods that originate from illegal settlements on the west bank, but are incorrectly labelled as being from within Israel, it is entirely possible for the British Government to do the same? There is no valid reason there for our not implementing sanctions.
Dr Chowns
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse.
We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
For my constituents in West Dunbartonshire, a community geographically far removed from Palestine, the horrific injustice being inflicted on the Palestinian people resonates deeply. They look at the systematic confiscation of Palestinian land, the draining of Palestinian water resources and the suffocating restrictions on movement, and they quite rightly see an intolerable violation of human dignity via the illegal Israeli settlements.
In 2009, when I was a councillor, my West Dunbartonshire local authority became the first council in Scotland to pass a unanimous trade ban on anything made or grown in Israel. The ban was extended in 2010, and again in 2011, to discourage investment and trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and it remains in place today.
Later, as provost during the 2014 Gaza war, I made the decision to fly the Palestinian flag from Dumbarton town hall—the municipal buildings. We were the first council in Scotland to do so. Yes, that was met with a backlash, but it sent a message of hope. It raised awareness of the suffering and deaths of people in Gaza and the west bank, and it showed that they were not forgotten. We must not forget them here in this place either, 12 years on. It was a simple act of solidarity from a small local authority thousands of miles away from the occupied territories, but a combination of acts can make a real difference. That is why I support today’s call for a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend just mentioned small acts. Last week, three of my constituents, Mike, Fiona and Mary, travelled to Parliament and green-carded me so that they could talk to me about the situation in Gaza. They join about 40 constituents who have written to me ahead of today’s debate, and over 800 constituents who have emailed me on the issue since I was elected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when so many constituents are moved to act, the least that we can do is make progress on ending trade with illegal settlements?
Douglas McAllister
Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. I think all hon. Members in the House have had the same volume of correspondence from our constituents, emphasising the strength of feeling up and down the United Kingdom.
Today, the situation in the west bank and East Jerusalem is at breaking point. Settler violence has reached an all-time high, displacing entire villages in a blatant abuse of human rights. Yet as the crisis rages on, the UK is not doing enough. I appreciate that we have finally recognised the state of Palestine, but we need to go beyond that and take decisive action.
The Charity Commission is being urged to investigate 32 British charities that have funnelled at least £28 million into these illegal territories—a figure that has been boosted even more by the British taxpayer through gift aid. We are inadvertently helping to fund infrastructure on stolen land. We should be funding peace, not obstacles to peace, and not apartheid.
Furthermore, the settlement enterprises know exactly what they are doing and they know that it is wrong. We know that because they routinely mislabel Palestinian products as being produced in Israel to sneak them into international trade markets and bolster the settler economy. Any goods or money obtained via trade with these illegal settlements are tainted by criminality, which is not something that our country should be associated with. They are the proceeds of crime that underpin Israel’s illegal occupation.
I welcome the actions that our UK Labour Government have taken so far. We have sanctioned extremist Ministers and violent settler networks, and we have updated the business risk guidance. In May last year, we also rightly suspended negotiations on a free trade agreement with Israel. But guidance and warnings are no longer enough. We must ensure that the illegal settlements have no viable economic future.
On 7 June, I proudly signed the letter co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) calling on the Foreign Secretary to introduce a ban on trade with illegal settlements. By delaying, we are falling behind our international allies: Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and even, we hear, the EU.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I want to place on record that my constituents feel as strongly as my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dumbarton about this: we have to ban trade with illegal settlements. Does he agree that although the Government have taken welcome steps, as he referenced, they must go further to ensure this trade is not allowed?
Douglas McAllister
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am sure his point has not been lost on the Minister, and we await with great anticipation what he will say from the Dispatch Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude. Trade with these settlements is fundamentally incompatible with international law. It is time to turn our solidarity into decisive action, cut off the economic lifelines of this illegal occupation and implement a total trade ban.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank my Yorkshire colleague the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate, and for introducing it with the passion and power she did.
Every single pound that goes from Britain to Israel is in one way or another helping Israel perpetuate its illegal occupation and apartheid system against the Palestinian people. Just this week, Haaretz reported that Israeli nationalist crime in the west bank is up by 560% since 2019, according to official police data. We know that the vast majority of the crimes by these terrorist settlers go unreported and unpunished, so if the percentage increase is officially 500-plus, it will actually be in the thousands given the crimes that will have gone unreported.
These settlements are illegal colonies. For years, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and rightly described these “settlements” as illegal under international law—this Government have done so more times than I can count—yet the condemnation rings hollow. If settlements are illegal, why are we still treating their products as legitimate? Every shipment from a settlement carries a human cost in the displacement, deprivation of income and death that it constitutes. It is the economic bedrock of a system of apartheid.
Up to 110,000 Palestinian families rely on the olive harvest as their source of income. For generations, olive trees have sustained communities economically and culturally. There has been settler violence for many decades, but during last year’s harvest it reached unprecedented levels, all against the backdrop of a genocide in Gaza. A Palestinian farmer named Jamal Daraghmeh was beaten alongside his sons as Israeli settlers tried to harvest olives from the land his family had cultivated for generations. That is how settlements expand: families are terrorised, livelihoods are destroyed and communities are driven from their land, creating the single greatest obstacle to Palestinian economic development and self-determination.
These injustices are accelerating before our eyes. As we have heard, since the genocide in Gaza began, settlement expansion has surged, with 165 new settlement outposts established. That is an average of 47 every year, up from just over five between 1996 and 2022. The consequences are also measured in the number of lives taken. According to B’Tselem, Israeli forces or civilians have killed 4,000 Palestinians since 2000. In the past year and a half, 70 Palestinian children have been murdered in the west bank, at an average of almost one every week.
Just last week, Smotrich celebrated what he called the “revolution” in settlement expansion. That a sanctioned Minister is publicly boasting about accelerating annexation while settlements continue to grow unabated shows that this Government’s approach is having zero meaningful impact.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does my hon. Friend agree that any debate on Palestine is incomplete if it fails to confront the elephant in the room, which is the allegation of genocide? I wonder whether he can help with this question; I suspect he will not be able to. What threshold of civilian suffering or alleged violence would cause the Government to reconsider their policy of maintaining normal economic and diplomatic relations with a state accused of genocide?
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As a barrister, he knows, as do many across the House who are not in that profession, that it is incumbent—an obligation—on the UK Government to take any and all practical steps to prevent and stop a genocide happening anywhere to any people, and that includes the Palestinians.
To conclude, history will not remember how many times this Government have condemned illegal settlements. It will remember that Britain, for decades, has chosen to keep trading with Israel and the settlements anyway. Condemnation without consequence is nothing less than complicity. Israeli settlers, aided and abetted by the IDF and the Israeli Government, have taken away the rights of the Palestinians to live. Instead of sanctioning the settlers, successive British Governments have actively facilitated and allowed goods and services from the settlements to be sold in the UK. Why do the British Government despise Palestinian life so much?
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
It is not often that I agree with both the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Father of the House said that the whole House should cry out against the situation in the west bank. He is right and, as I look around, I think that is what is happening in the Chamber. I am not sure that anybody, apart from possibly the Front Benchers, is going to disagree with the motion, so brilliantly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed).
I support a two-state solution, but every day, as the result of illegal settlement expansion, driven by violence and supported by the Netanyahu Government, that only real hope for a sustainable peace in the middle east gets less likely. Every day there are violent attacks on Palestinians in the west bank: homes demolished, farmland seized and roads blocked. Every day Palestinians are blocked from accessing healthcare, water, employment and education—the basics of life—as a result of their inability to move freely across their land. The settlements make the situation more intolerable and intractable every day.
Of course the settlements are a breach of the fourth Geneva convention. They are condemned as illegal by the ICJ, the UN Security Council and the vast majority of member states, including the UK. If we accept that settlements are illegal, we cannot just stop there. Many of my constituents in Manchester Withington have contacted me, calling for the UK to do what international law requires of us: to ensure that our trade policy reflects both our values and our legal obligations, and to do everything we can to stop the Israeli Government’s actions in supporting settler violence. That means, as a bare minimum, a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
I am not naive enough to think that what the UK does alone will change the Netanyahu Government’s policy, but the international community, working together, has to use every lever we have in this situation. Last year, the ICJ set out its advisory opinion on the situation in the OPT. Governments who are committed to the rule of law should take its conclusions seriously. The court said that states should take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that assist in maintaining the illegal situation created by the occupation and by the settlement enterprise.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this issue is not just about products coming from settlements to the UK, but companies in the UK trading in goods and services in the settlements? Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia are all selling tourism services in the occupied territories.
Jeff Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and we should not overlook the role of services—it is not just about goods.
The Government will say, and have said, that it is difficult to enact in practice, but just because something is difficult does not mean we should not attempt to fulfil our obligations. Yes, there will be practical complications about enforcement, but complications are no reason to do nothing. They do not stop us committing to the principle. Then we can work out how we make it work. We have heard a number of examples of how we can make the situation work.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a very powerful and informed speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). I just want to press him on that point. Is not the important thing now for the Government to commit in principle to a ban on settlement trade? We can agree with our international partners that we should work out the technicalities when possible, but such a commitment would give the public the moral clarity that we are prepared to act in line with our values.
Jeff Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts it better than I did. We can figure out how to make a ban work once we have committed to the principle, and there are ways of doing it. As we have heard today, the Government already have processes in place to distinguish between goods coming from Israel and the OPT as a result of the processes on preferential access for Israeli goods, and we can build on that experience. We have heard that other countries are already instigating such measures, and we can learn from their experience.
A settlement trade ban is no longer a marginal or unrealistic demand; it is becoming a mainstream response. A ban on trade with settlements would not, on its own, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, but it would ensure that Britain is not contributing to an unlawful situation that the world’s highest court has concluded all states have a duty not to support. It would demonstrate that our principles are reflected not only in our words, but in our actions.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate the Government on recognising the state of Palestine. That recognition was long overdue, but a state needs territory, and its citizens need safety and security. The state of Palestine and its citizens do not have either.
Gaza has been devastated by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military action, which has widely been called out as genocide. Many of Gaza’s residents have been killed or injured, and the survivors have lost family and friends, homes, health services, businesses and jobs. Meanwhile, in East Jerusalem and on the west bank, so-called settlers, who are better described as terrorists, are threatening, injuring and even killing people to take Palestinian land. The Israeli Government take no action to prevent this; indeed, they openly encourage the settlements. Members of the Israeli Security Cabinet have even stated that their goal is to make a sovereign Palestine unviable. We have to prevent that, because a two-state solution is the only way to achieve peace in that part of the world.
The Government have confirmed that the settlements are illegal, so now they have to go further. Like many Members here today, I have had reams and reams of emails about this issue, and my constituents have called on me to ask the Government to take more action. As well as using diplomacy, which I am sure we are doing, we must make the settlements economically unviable, so I call on the Minister to ban all trade in goods and services with these illegal Israeli settlements.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this very important debate.
Somewhere in the UK today, a shopper will put a box of dates or a bottle of wine in their basket. A fraction of what they pay at the till will travel back to a hilltop settlement built on stolen land, which illegal settlers have bulldozed, fenced off and armed against the families who have farmed it for generations. Let me be clear: settler violence is not the work of a lawless fringe group; it is very much supported by the Israeli Government, the state, the army and Israeli Ministers. Israel’s basic law declares that settlement developments are of national value.
We heard Prime Minister Netanyahu declare last year that there would be no Palestinian state. He was describing the Israeli Government’s E1 plan, which cuts the west bank into two parts, and his Finance Minister has published plans for annexation of the west bank. Many Israeli leaders have said that they do not want two states, and we have seen that the terrorists torching olive groves and the Ministers signing annexation maps are not separate problems. This year alone, two communities, Khirbet Yanun and Ras Ein al-Auja, have ceased to exist. More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, settler violence is at a record high, and 350 Palestinian children remain in Israeli military detention. The illegal settlers have swimming pools, but the neighbouring Palestinians cannot even get water. The International Court of Justice looked at the situation and said that there has been an international violation, and that it is racial segregation and apartheid, yet nothing has been done.
We in this Government recognised the state of Palestine and restored the UN funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have also said that we would accept the decisions of the Internation Criminal Court, which has said that we should honour the International Court of Justice’s ruling that the occupation is unlawful and states must not help to sustain it. By not banning trade, we are effectively not abiding by what the International Criminal Court has said. I say to the Minister: please, promise us that those illegal goods will be stopped from coming to this country.
I also ask the Minister to recognise that over a number of years we have seen devastation, destruction and genocide in Gaza, we have seen what has been happening in the west bank—what has been mentioned is only part of what has been happening—where old and young people have been terrorised from their homes, and it is about time that we stopped overlooking what the Israeli Government have been doing. It is ironic that, when it is a country that we are supposed to be allied with, nobody criticises their actions or does anything, but when it comes to other countries, we are happy to impose sanctions, make armed interventions and everything else.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
I welcome this debate and say a huge thank you to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it, for what she said and for the enormous amount of work she has done for the Palestinian people since she was elected two years ago. It is much appreciated across the whole country.
The issue is basically one of international law. The ICJ landmark advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 says that states must not recognise, aid or assist the unlawful situation arising from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. The ICJ made it clear that all states have an obligation to
“abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory”.
Furthermore, the ICJ calls on states to
“take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
It could not be clearer, so why, as a country, do we still support Israel diplomatically in many ways? Why do we still provide weapons and security information to Israel, which have been used in the destruction of Gaza and other places? I would like to know exactly what information is passed on, given the increasing military presence of Israel in the west bank in support of the settlers.
I have many good friends in the west bank and Gaza, one of whom is Mustafa Barghouti, the president of the Palestine National Initiative. He frequently sends me messages describing what has happened in the past 24 hours. The messages he sends are heartbreaking. I would like to share with the House the message he sent yesterday. He pointed out that the US is now building its embassy in Jerusalem on land that it has been given by the state of Israel for $1. The land itself was stolen from Palestinians by using the absentee owner law that Israel created for the occupied territories. It is not Israel’s land to give to the United States for a dollar; it is Palestinian land that should belong to the Palestinian people.
I will give the House an example of the day-to-day horror story of the behaviour of the settlers, strongly supported by the state of Israel, the IDF and the Israeli police. A school in Masafer Yatta was told that it had 14 days to vacate the building and disappear, because it was going to be demolished to make way for yet another settlement that had been “authorised” by the state of Israel. We see the destruction of ordinary life all across the west bank.
I have visited Gaza, the west bank and Israel many times. I have seen the horror story of what the occupation does; I have seen the theft of land, the destruction of water systems and the inability for anyone to get around in a normal way. Surely to goodness the very least we can do is support what has been said today, end all trade whatsoever that helps to support the illegal occupation of the west bank and show our solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will implement a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this this debate. Like her, I support a complete legal ban on all British trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied west bank.
These settlements are illegal under international law, and Britain should not permit trade that helps to sustain or profit from activity that is clearly unlawful under international law. We have both a legal and a moral obligation to act. The settlements form part of a broader pattern of land confiscation, home demolitions, movement restrictions, settler violence and the denial of basic human rights. These policies are being actively encouraged by the Netanyahu Government and are intended, at least in part, to extinguish any realistic prospect of a future Palestinian state. If we genuinely support a two-state solution, want to respect our obligations under international law and recognise our common humanity, then Britain must act.
Palestinian children in the west bank are among those suffering most from the escalating levels of settler violence. According to UNICEF, 70 Palestinian children were killed in the west bank between January last year and May this year, which is roughly one child every week. The wider trend is equally alarming. According to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, March this year saw the highest number of Palestinians injured in settler attacks for two decades.
Illegal settlements now physically occupy nearly 10% of the west bank, while settlement regional councils exercise control over approximately 40% of the territory. This has dramatically reduced the land available for Palestinian housing, infrastructure and economic development. The World Bank has repeatedly highlighted how restrictions on Palestinian access to land undermine economic growth and development. Without meaningful action to curb settlement expansion, poverty will deepen in the west bank, and the prospects for peace will recede further still.
Large areas of Palestinian agricultural land have been confiscated for the direct benefit of settlers. It is clear that this is not accidental or incidental, but a deliberate policy that enjoys the active support of the Israeli Government. Last September, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated,
“there will be no Palestinian state”,
while advancing the E1 settlement expansion plan, which would effectively split the west bank in two.
In its 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are contrary to international law and stated that other countries, clearly including us, have obligations not to support or assist in the maintenance of the unlawful situation created by the settlements. A comprehensive ban on settlement trade would therefore be a practical and necessary step towards meeting those obligations and challenging continued settlement expansion.
Gareth Thomas
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, just because of time.
Britain would not be acting alone. Spain has already introduced a ban, while Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands have either committed to or are advancing similar measures. If they are willing to act, why are we not? Others have already identified the fact that there is a comparable restriction on goods originating from illegally occupied Crimea and other Russian-occupied territories in Ukraine, so the principle of a ban is neither novel nor unprecedented, and, with the appropriate care and consultation, could take place here in the UK.
We have the means to act and the responsibility to do so. A ban on trade with illegal settlements is both justified and overdue.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I want to start by putting on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for bringing forward this important debate. I congratulate her on her tremendous, very passionate speech.
I am grateful to all Members who have outlined the legal position. We know that Ireland has passed a Bill banning products from illegal settlements, as has Spain, and Belgium is pushing to do the same. I am going to bring Members right back to the common-sense argument. The case put forward this week by the Irish Parliament was clear: goods should not enter freely into commercial markets, as doing so would allow illegal goods and services to be transformed into legal entities in Ireland. That is the crux of it for me, and it is that premise that has been highlighted in expert legal opinions by Richard Fisher KC and Rabah Kherbane of Doughty Street Chambers. They say that there is a legal basis under domestic UK law for prosecuting the trade of goods from Israeli illegal settlements into the UK and that it amounts to production under part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The decision not to ban these products seems driven less by genuine legal application than by how such a position might be politically received by Israel. Fundamentally, the question is not about trade with Israel but about trade with illegal settlements in illegal occupied territories and a matter of international law.
Mr Hussain
Does the hon. Member agree that the ICJ advisory opinion leaves the decision not as a political one but as a legal one? In respect of domestic law, we know that the Government accept the illegal settlements. Therefore, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, if the Government do not make a firm decision, are they not putting our financial institutions at risk?
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for his comment. I was going to come to that in my speech, but I am having to miss lots out because of the time limit.
Currently, the UK Government strongly advise against conducting any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, including financial transactions, investments, procurement and other economic activities. The Government confirm that that has legal and economic risks according to international law.
Here is the thing: so long as consumers are aware that goods originate from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land—according to international law, illegal settlements amount to war crimes—and are illegal produce, they can choose whether they want to buy the goods or not. Let me spell this out. If something is grown on stolen land, which is recognised as illegal by our Government and recognised to pose legal risks as proceeds from stolen land, so long as those goods are clearly and correctly labelled as “stolen goods”, they can legally be sold in Asda, Morrisons, Tesco or even Marks & Spencer.
Imagine if we were to apply the same principle in the UK to ordinary citizens. It would suggest that so long as a product or good is labelled, even if the product is linked to criminal property, it is fine. In fact, one could go even further and argue that if Asda, Morrisons, Tesco or any other supermarket were to sell stolen TVs, for example, so long as they labelled them “possibly stolen”, and businesses were warned of the legal and economic risks, it would be fine to buy one from the local supermarket. That is the bottom line: the consumer has the knowledge, and the authorities are happy to turn a blind eye.
We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the annexation and terrorism that the Palestinians are facing from terrorist settlers. Make no mistake, this is a state-sanctioned occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory. We cannot and must not stand by, because history will not be kind to us.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on leading this debate today.
The Government rightly say that Israel’s settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law. If that is the Government’s position, I welcome that recognition, but there is an obvious question: why does Britain still permit trade and financial activity that helps sustain those illegal settlements?
In a matter of days, it will be two years since the ICJ advisory opinion was given, which people have commented on. Two years on, the Government are yet to explain how they intend to give effect to those obligations in UK law and policy. In a statement on 9 June, the Foreign Secretary said:
“I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 162.]
I had a look at that guidance this morning. It goes no further than advising against economic and financial activity in the settlements. It does not say that trading with settlements is unlawful, and it does not say that such trade, financial services or investment are prohibited.
That contradiction was exposed during the Great Israeli Real Estate Event in London, where property in illegal settlements was marketed to British buyers. The Government referred the organisers to the Advertising Standards Authority. With respect, this is not principally an advertising issue; it is a question of whether commercial activity linked to illegal settlements should be taking place at all. If such activity is taking place through Britain’s financial system, Britain’s regulators should be asking whether it is facilitating activity connected to settlements that this Government accept are unlawful. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and I, as co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, have written to Britain’s anti-money laundering supervisory bodies—but they bounce the matter straight back to the Government.
Ministers point to travel bans, sanctions on two Israeli Ministers and updated guidance. Those are all welcome, but they do not answer the wider question of whether Britain is using every available tool to uphold international law. The Government say they lack the powers—we have heard today that they do not. They cannot occupy two positions at once; they cannot say that settlements are illegal while allowing British commerce to help sustain them. They cannot condemn them in speeches and maintain those positions.
Today’s motion cannot change the law, but it can tell the Government that Parliament expects the law to reflect its own state’s position. This country has a history of having betrayed the Palestinian people since 1915, with the betrayal of the Sharif of Mecca in 1917, the 1936 put down of the uprising, and the facilitation of the Nakba. It is about time we discharged our legal and moral responsibilities to the Palestinian people.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied west bank and East Jerusalem is having a profound impact on Palestinian communities, where military violence and attacks by extremist idealogues are spiralling. Poverty is pervasive and economic development is almost non-existent thanks to Israel’s systemic abuse and seizure of Palestinian land and resources.
Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, while road closures and checkpoints prevent them from accessing the services they require. Israel has committed ethnic cleansing and war crimes, as well as genocide, in Gaza. Children have been targeted, maimed and killed. It is right that the Government have recognised the state of Palestine, introduced sanctions on certain individuals and groups, and suspended some arms licences, but that is nowhere near enough. The time for expressing concerns and taking limited action was over decades ago. To continue with the strategy when Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide beggars belief. We must stop looking the other way; we must not allow financial support for Israel’s crimes.
There have long been calls to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements and the Government must heed those calls now. Spain has already implemented a package of import restrictions on Israeli settlement goods, and earlier this week the Irish Parliament approved legislation banning imports from settlements. The proposed law states that it is designed to abide by Ireland’s
“international legal obligation, as identified by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion”,
and it specifically includes taking steps
“to prevent trade relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
The Government agree that Israel’s control of the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza amounts to occupation under international law, so why are we refusing to comply with international law by failing to ban trade with illegal settlements? That is the bare minimum—I would argue we should be implementing much broader economic sanctions against Israel—but it would at least be a start. By failing to do so, we are contributing to the systemic abuse of human rights and international law on which the settlements rely.
History will remember the way that the international community stood by and allowed Israel to commit crimes against humanity. I am afraid to say that the Government are on the wrong side of history, but they do not have to stay there. They could and should pull every lever at their disposal to pressure Israel to comply with international law. A ban on trade with illegal settlements is a lever that we should have pulled long ago.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of a UK ban on trade in goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and for all her work on the issue.
Last month I organised a letter to the Foreign Secretary, which was co-signed by more than 140 Labour colleagues, to call for such a ban. The strength of feeling among Labour Members, and across the House, is clear. I hope that the Minister has heard that.
The existence and expansion of Israeli settlements is an impediment to peace and to a two-state solution. Some Israeli Government Ministers are now helpfully clear that that is their purpose. In response, British Jewish organisation Yachad has a letter from British Jews in support of a settlement trade ban, with almost 1,000 signatures so far. As they know, Israeli settlements are not normal places, and we should not deal with them as if they were. Instead, we must follow through both on our historic recognition of the state of Palestine and on the ICJ advisory opinion. A trade ban would be one way of properly delineating between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.
Settlements are an affront not only to international law, but to human decency. In 2013, I had the life-changing experience of serving as a human rights observer in Hebron, in the west bank. In this Palestinian city, day after day, I witnessed the routine violence against and humiliation of Palestinian civilians by Israeli settlers and soldiers alike. I do not have time to share with hon. Members all the events that I witnessed, day after day, but they included a man being harassed and held at a checkpoint for hours because he took some biscuits to a kindergarten; a family with a young child and a disabled son being attacked by settlers, who called on others to “come and attack the Arabs”; and Palestinians being barred from entering their home by neighbouring Israeli settlers while Israeli soldiers stood and watched, as we asked them to help, before attacking us—internationals who were observing the situation—and arresting one of the internationals, with settlers cheering as they took him away in a van. We also witnessed daily, on the school run, Palestinian children being tear-gassed and having stun grenades thrown at them by Israeli soldiers. The Palestinian children were terrified. And so it went on.
Which other population would we expect to put up with that day after day? Every time I have returned since, the situation has worsened. Year after year, Governments issue statements about the situation. It is time we got on with a ban on settlement trade. It is no use the Government’s dragging their feet. We have had to do that on too many issues. Can we please just get on with it?
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am honoured to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing the debate.
Earlier this year, I travelled to Israel and the occupied west bank as part of a cross-party delegation organised by Yachad. I met survivors of the 7 October attack and Palestinian families driven from their homes and living under daily intimidation from settlers. Let us be clear: illegal settlements are not simply an obstacle to peace; they are a deliberate strategy to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine, but recognition must not be simply symbolic. We have a responsibility to make that state viable, and that starts with banning trade with illegal settlements. The UK should not allow goods produced on occupied land to enter our markets, and nor should British businesses profit from activity that our own Government say is illegal. We should also suspend trade concessions and sanction any company bidding for contracts to design, finance or construct illegal settlements, such as those in E1.
There needs to be far greater scrutiny of British money flowing into settlements. No UK charities should retain charitable status while facilitating settlements, and no British financial institutions should be investing in companies sustaining settlement expansion. There must be accountability when British-funded infrastructure is destroyed. In Khirbet Zanuta, I saw the remains of a school partly funded by UK aid. It was destroyed by sustained settler attacks, which forced the community to flee. The British Government should seek compensation from the Israeli Government for the destruction of infrastructure funded by UK taxpayers.
Finally, we must support the institutions of the Palestinian state. Representatives of the Palestinian Authority described to me the financial crisis caused by Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax and tariff revenues. Its continued withholding weakens the institutions that any future Palestinian state will depend on. If we are serious about nation building, the UK must apply renewed pressure for the release of those revenues in full, without delay.
None of these measures are anti-Israel; they are pro-peace. They are about defending international law, supporting those on both sides working for co-existence, and preserving any realistic prospect of a negotiated two-state solution. My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of principle, and of strong values and determination, and he will resist excuses for not acting. I urge him to apply those principles and that determination to this problem. The world watches us, and we must act.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
For over half a century, successive Governments of every political persuasion have affirmed to this House that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are unlawful. This is not a matter of personal interpretation, but a consistent and well-established legal consensus—consensus that is shared by the Foreign Office, codified in resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and, since July 2024, articulated with exceptional clarity by the International Court of Justice. Yet the stain on our moral fabric is that despite recognition of that, those same settlement goods are sold in British shops, and just last month, settler properties were marketed at a fair in London.
When settlement expansion threatens to extinguish the very two-state solution that this Government are committed to, we must ask ourselves what purpose is served by delaying the upholding of moral and legal obligations that some of our European allies have already begun to uphold. Put simply, when Spain has banned all settlement trade, why cannot we?
Across the House, there is consensus among Members on our position that this expansion is illegal under international law, yet through our continued delay in banning trade with these settlements, we risk in practice, if not in principle, giving legitimacy to Israel’s claim to sovereignty over occupied territory. If we are not prepared to match our rhetoric with action, our condemnation of settlement expansion amounts to lip service.
In January, many of us took to these Benches to stress the importance of the rules-based order when the President of the United States threatened to take Greenland. We have time and again championed that same order in condemning Putin and rightly standing with Ukraine. We risk losing credibility for having made those correct calls the moment we permit commerce with what we, and everyone around us, deem an illegal enterprise.
Naushabah Khan
I will not, in the interests of time, thank you.
Nor is it only Israel’s sovereignty over occupied land that we risk legitimising; it is also the violent means by which these territories are being occupied. The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs documented over 1,700 settler attacks on Palestinian communities across the west bank just last year. Not taking action now is to underwrite, however indirectly, the conditions in which violence is inflicted on Palestinian men, women and children by Israeli settlers, and the military force that stands behind it. I therefore urge the Minister not to delay any further, and to take action today.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) not just on the power of her words, but on her extensive work, day in, day out, on this issue. When discussing this issue, we should start from a clear principle: if we support a two-state solution, we cannot trade with those who, through illegal activities, make that less achievable with every passing day. This is about life on the west bank, and whether we are prepared to acknowledge realities that impede the everyday life of Palestinians. Prosperity and dignity depend on very ordinary things that we all take for granted—getting to work on time; children being able to see their grandparents; and accessing water, services and opportunities—but those things are simply not possible for an increasing number of Palestinian communities.
I am fortunate to know the Antonine Friendship Link, a humanitarian group in the Falkirk area that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians in Jayyous on the west bank, creating friendships and solidarity across communities and borders. Those long-standing connections gave me the opportunity to hear directly from Sharif, an olive farmer in the village. He gave deeply moving testimony about life at a time when there are extraordinary constraints on people’s liberty, freedom and agency. Sharif spoke to me about regular obstructions that he faced in getting to his land and place of work, intimidation from nearby settlers, and the frustration of lawlessness. He has taken on multiple legal cases, including in the Supreme Court of Israel, and he has won. However, those decisions are not meaningfully upheld in practice, and obstacle after obstacle has been placed, often literally, in his way. His olive groves, his livelihood, and his community remain isolated.
Sharif’s account is like much of the evidence available to us, and the only conclusion I feel able to draw is that communities such as Jayyous are being increasingly and purposefully squeezed, isolated and made less viable. For people like Sharif and communities like Jayyous, and for their peace, security and chance to lead normal lives, we must be prepared to examine seriously whether trade with illegal settlements is compatible and consistent with the values and objectives of our overall goal of a two-state solution. In my view it is not.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think the Minister has got the message—[Laughter.] No, I am being serious. We cannot go on like this. We cannot keep on turning up and debating like this, and taking no action. The Minister is effective and has got the message, and I think that over the next few weeks we might see some action. I desperately hope so.
We have all been talking about physical infrastructure and the annexation of the west bank, but I also want to talk about what the Israelis are doing to civil society, and mention two cases that I have been raising over the last few weeks. About two weeks ago, the house in Ramallah of Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known on the west bank as the doctor of the poor, was raided and he was arrested. We have not seen or heard from him since, and we do not even know where he is detained. He is chair of the Union of Health Work Committees on the west bank. It is registered with the Palestinian Authority, but it has been declared illegal by the Israelis. We do not know why, as no grounds have been put forward. Will the Minister convey to the Foreign Office that we need information about where Dr al-Rantisi is, and how we can get him some independent access and assessment?
The second case is more worrying for me. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya has now been in solitary confinement for 18 months. His lawyer visited him last week—we all got the message, didn’t we? His lawyer saw him. It looked as though he had been interrogated again, and tortured, and his lawyer said that he could not sit up straight and was falling over. In addition, his lawyer said, “I actually think his life is now at risk.” I raised the issue in the House 10 days ago, and directly with the Foreign Office Minister, and we got an assurance that it would be raised by the FCDO.
I have been here long enough to know that, in other such instances, the country’s ambassador has been brought in and given a clear view of the Government’s position. With regard to Dr Safiya, all we are asking for is access to an independent medical assessment, so that he can be assessed and receive some treatment, rather than being tortured in the way he is being. I raise that because I have fear that if we do not take some action, within a few weeks, he may no longer be alive.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my visit to Palestine with Yachad. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and for her exemplary argument, among the many given by colleagues.
I have always supported a Palestinian state in the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Israeli settlement land grabs and control of Palestinian territory are illegal under international law, and I consider them an occupation of Palestinian land. We do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, and we do not recognise the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine. We do not trade with the Russian occupied territories, and we must apply the same principle here: no trade with the Israeli occupied territories of Palestine.
Violence and harassment by Israeli settlers has reached unprecedented levels. According to the UN, in 2025, more than 1,700 settler attacks causing casualties and property damage were recorded across more than 217 Palestinian communities in the west bank. I witnessed that myself in the south Hebron hills in 2024.
The international trend is moving towards prohibiting settlement trade outright, rather than relying solely on differentiation, as the Government do. Spain has enacted legislation prohibiting settlement trade, and the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium and Norway have advanced legislation or Government proposals. Bills have been introduced in the French and Italian Parliaments. I therefore support the call for a total ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, in line with our European counterparts.
I will use my remaining time to raise the need to free Marwan Barghouti. Marwan has been illegally held by Israel for 24 years, two months and 22 days. He has been unjustly imprisoned by Israel for over two decades, convicted in a trial by a court he did not recognise. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has declared multiple breaches in his case, starting with his illegal arrest and transfer to Israel. Despite his imprisonment, poll after poll shows that he is Palestine’s most popular leader. He is a powerful symbol of unity and a long-time advocate for freedom and dignity for the people of Palestine. In the words of Nelson Mandela in 2002,
“What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me.”
We must free Marwan and end the occupation.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Many people across the country will be watching the debate with real interest. I welcome the thoughtful contributions of colleagues across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), who I thank for securing the debate.
From the outset, I express my solidarity with both Palestinians and Israelis who want to secure a lasting peace that will ensure that generations to come do not grow up under the shadow of war. There is one angle that I would like to examine more closely in my remarks: the critical impact on the lives and livelihoods of women and children among these illegal settlements. Their rapid expansion has helped to push the Palestinian economy into its worst decline since records began. That means that many women within the west bank are forced to seek employment in these settlements, where the work is exploitative and dangerous. Ninety-three per cent of workers report hazardous conditions, and 94% are without a written contract between them and their employers. The propensity for sexual and gender-based violence is spiralling and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said, 70% of displaced Palestinian families identify the risk of sexual violence as a key factor in leaving their home.
Such appalling treatment is designed to humiliate and punish Palestinian communities, and it is being conducted with impunity. To compound that, the expansion of checkpoints and roadblocks is precluding women and girls, as well as men and boys, from accessing health care, education, legitimate employment and connection to their communities. Nearly 350 children from the west bank are held in military detention for alleged security-related offences. That is children being held in military detention—we cannot countenance that.
More broadly, the daily exposure to settlers and settler violence has changed Palestinian children. Save the Children reports that years of warfare, violence, arbitrary attacks and curtailed freedoms have led to hyper-vigilance, anxiety and trauma among children across the west bank, born from a pure desire to survive. One cannot qualify the suffering of the Palestinian people. What they have endured is beyond our comprehension. Contemplating what children in Gaza and the west bank have gone through fills me, a relatively new mother, with sheer horror.
I would appreciate clarity on whether a complete ban on trade and investment in illegal settlements will be implemented. There has obviously been considerable delay in moving forward in this area, and strongly advising against trade is clearly not enough. Advising against trade with the settlements and an outright ban are two different things entirely. What conversations have taken place between the Minister and his Israeli counterparts pertaining to the treatment of civilians—especially women and children—in the west bank? What was the outcome of those conversations?
We cannot control Israel, but we can control our own standards of trade and commerce, especially on the enduring issue of illegal settlement. The diplomatic tide is with us, and the will of the House is clear. I urge the Minister to reflect on that and fortify his words with action.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
One year ago this month, Awdah Hathaleen, a resident of Umm al-Khair, who was a consultant on Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land” and who I and others in this House met during his visit to Parliament in 2024, was murdered by the settler Yinon Levi. Awdah is desperately missed by his community in the village of Umm al-Khair, who are under severe threat of settler attacks and from the Israeli miliary. Only this week, it has been reported that over 30 armed settlers under military protection rampaged through Umm al-Khair to attack Palestinians.
I raise this case to point out how weak the UK’s west bank policy is in practice. Yinon Levi runs an earthworks and construction company that enables the construction of new illegal settlement outposts and uses its heavy machinery to destroy Palestinian infrastructure, including pipes and powerlines. Even though Levi is sanctioned, it is entirely legal for UK firms to do business with him and to sell his firm diggers or spare parts, concrete for new outposts or anything else. The limits of these sanctions are simply a travel ban and an asset freeze—weak.
The point is that this designation means nothing in practice if trade sanctions are not brought in to stymie support for illegal settlements. As hon. Members have said, these “complexities” are not fit to hide behind. When we see the action quite rightly taken on Russia and we see that many countries have already made a commitment to banning settlement trade, complexity comes across as a lazy excuse. The UK is being left behind internationally on this front and the Government appear to be farcically weak to the public, their MPs, the Palestinian people and even the Israeli Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for bringing such an important debate to the House. I appreciate all the speeches that have been given with such force. The issue is enormously important to many of my constituents in Witney.
A disaster is happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Some 2,000 people have been killed just in the west bank since October 2023, but that is just the tip of an iceberg of settler violence and state-sponsored violence that is carving up land and putting in barriers. Between half and three quarters of a million Israelis now live in settlements in the west bank that are illegal under international law. The Israeli Government have doubled down on this with their active plans for a massive further expansion in the E1 zone, while the UK Government look on passively.
We need to introduce a legislative ban on all UK trade in goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements. That should include a package of sanctions including large fines for any UK firms that bid for tenders relating to illegal settlement construction in the E1 area or elsewhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These sanctions should extend to include any financial institutions here in the UK that through the provision of finance directly facilitate UK companies’ involvement in construction or other service provision for illegal settlements —and yes, we are all thinking about you, JCB.
Various hon. Members talked about the contrast with the speed at which the Government introduced sanctions on Russian-occupied Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine, so I will not rehash those arguments, but the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs play key roles in those sanctions, which they are not being asked to play in relation to these sanctions. Members also talked about how other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, are implementing bans or legislating to implement bans. If we do not know how to do it, why do we not ask them how they did it? We might learn something.
I want to stress the important subject of services. Compared with the value of goods, the value of services is unknown, but it is almost certainly large, perhaps much larger than goods. Whatever that value is, we want services to be included in the sanctions. I am looking for a commitment from the Minister to a ban that includes services, and to the enforcement of that.
On the Government’s non-enforcement of their own labelling measures, the Business and Trade Select Committee, of which I am a member, has written to the Government twice, most recently in April 2026 following a meeting with Palestinian delegates on 4 February and a Sub-Committee session with the Minister for Trade—I thank the Minister—on 25 February. The Government, however, have since refused the Committee’s request for evidence on enforcement of their current labelling measures. Will the Minister give us that evidence? These commitments matter, because we made them, along with Israel, under the UK-Israel free trade agreement, which requires the UK and Israel to differentiate goods produced within green-line Israel—within the pre-1967 borders—and goods produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a key point.
At the moment, I think many Members of this House share the overall impression that the Government’s inaction means that they are talking the talk about protecting human rights and upholding international law, but not walking the walk. This is a Labour Government; bluntly, I expect more from them, so I really hope we will see something today on this issue.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I thank Members from across the House for their contributions today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate on trade—granted, of course, by the Backbench Business Committee.
Before I turn to the specifics of what we are debating today, it is important to be clear from the outset that Conservative Members, like all Members who have spoken, want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. Israelis, Palestinians and people across the region deserve to live in peace with security, and it is my party’s long-held position that this can be best achieved through a two-state solution. We also want to see the Abraham accords expanded and wider regional barriers to peace overcome. At the same time, the official Opposition’s view is that settlements are not conducive to achieving long-term peace. We believe that the Israeli Government should firmly clamp down on settler violence, and we are against the expansion of settlements.
Yasmin Qureshi
The shadow Minister says that the Israeli Government should stop these settlements, but as he knows, the Israeli Government have put their full weight behind them. The IDF are there when the settlers are doing these things, so on what basis does he say that the Israeli Government should be doing something about it? They are behind it.
Gareth Davies
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will address the point that she raises later in my speech, but our shared aim across this House, which is peace in the region, cannot be achieved without Britain maintaining an enduring relationship with Israel and with our allies in the region. It is through engagement that we will be able to achieve the resolution we all want. Engagement is vital to achieving the peace that unites the House today.
That is why I regret that, in my view and the view of the official Opposition, Britain’s influence has been diminished to such a degree due to a series of misjudged decisions. These include the decision to cancel trade talks while Hamas were still holding hostages after the 7 October attacks; the decision to impose export licence suspensions while Israel was burying hostages so barbarically taken from their loved ones; and the decision to recognise a Palestinian state when no formal peace process had been agreed. Of course we support a two-state solution, and it is right that we would recognise a Palestinian state, but recognition of a Palestinian state is only meaningful if it is part of a formal peace process. As my shadow ministerial colleagues have pointed out, the Government’s actions to date have left our relations with Israel in a deep freeze, with our ability to influence the situation in the region severely diminished.
Melanie Ward
The shadow Minister has been talking about the views of our allies in the region. I wonder when he last met or spoke to our allies across the Arab world, because they have been crying out for many of the actions that our Government have taken. They have been calling on us to act in support of a two-state solution, and to avoid dithering and doing nothing, which is what he is suggesting his party supports.
Gareth Davies
The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that we are saying we should do nothing. If Members remember, it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2024 who imposed sanctions on the settlements. The House has heard me say from this Dispatch Box that the expansion of settlements is wrong. She is being unfair. What I am talking about is a point of execution. We have to engage with our allies—Israel is a critical ally of the United Kingdom—and that is not done by banning trade with Israel.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The shadow Minister says that Israel is a critical ally. Is it not possible ever to be critical of one’s allies in return?
Gareth Davies
We can be critical of our allies and we can be critical friends—of course we can—but what I am saying is that disengagement is not a solution to achieving what the House wants, which is peace in the middle east.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gareth Davies
I will make a little progress in the interests of time, because I know that Members will want to hear from the Minister. It is the official Opposition’s view that a proposed ban on the trade of Israeli settlement goods and services will bring about the same result as I have been talking about and will prove counterproductive and ineffective.
Secondly, aside from the ineffectiveness of the policy, it is not even clear that it could be implemented, according to the Labour Government. The Government have repeatedly pointed out, as have many Members today, that a ban on settlement goods would be difficult to enforce. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said that countries imposing such a ban are encountering “technical difficulties”. Will the Trade Minister address that point when he responds to the debate, and confirm that the Government still hold these concerns about practicality? Labour Members have been questioning that. It is all well and good making a point and arguing for an action, but the Government say that it cannot be executed, and it needs to be explained.
I realise that many anti-Israel campaigners will not be concerned with the answers to these questions that I am posing of the Minister. They may not care whether a ban is effective or having an impact, but only that it should be in place. By the way, I have heard nobody in this debate mention that one in seven medicines dispensed by the NHS comes from Israel. Those who have suggested that we should have an outright ban on Israeli trade have offered no solution to that point. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital that the Government take the full impact of any policy into consideration.
Gareth Davies
Not right now, and I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Lady.
Finally, and more broadly, we worry that the campaigners ultimately want this ban to become a gateway to a wider ban on trade with Israel. If that is the case, they simply do not accept the importance of the relationship that we have with Israel. On trade and the economy, Israel is a technology and health superpower, with the UK-Israel trading relationship worth £6 billion. When the last Government launched bilateral trade talks in 2022, we estimated that the reduction in trade barriers could benefit almost 7,000 UK businesses in all Labour Members’ constituencies, including 5,600 SMEs employing 1.7 million people. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on the status of the trade agreement discussions. [Interruption.]
I see that you are asking me to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. We firmly believe that the proposed trade embargo would have no practical effect whatever on the situation in the region. We are concerned that it is part of a broader push by Israel’s opponents to isolate the Jewish state politically and economically. The ban would be legally and administratively complex, it would have limited economic effect, and it would hinder diplomatic efforts to find a sustainable, long-term peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. No matter what Members might say or shout, the ban would not bring about peace in the middle east. We have already seen Britain’s voice marginalised and Britain’s ability to influence Israel diminished. To go further down this path would not serve British, Israeli or Palestinian interests at all, so we cannot support the proposed ban.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), who has raised many of these issues not just today, but on other days. It is important that we are having this debate.
I hope that hon. Members do not mind, but I will not go through each individual Member’s contribution; I will just try to answer the single voice—well, the nearly single voice—that I have heard in the Chamber today. I will try to do so in the most straightforward and up-front way possible.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) said that we should not avoid the elephant in the room—the humanitarian situation in Gaza. He is absolutely right. It is appalling, disgraceful and despicable. There are so many starving; so many thirsty for clean drinking water; so many lacking shelter and shade; so many lacking daily medicine and emergency care; so many children without teachers, without parents, without brothers and sisters or uncles and aunts, and without friends to join in the playground; so many orphans; so many homeless; so many injured; so many disabled; so many frightened and angry; so many grieving; so many dead. It does shame us all. The Israeli Government must immediately allow all humanitarian aid in so that the people of Gaza can breathe and live. The ceasefire must be abided by.
The settlements are morally wrong, legally indefensible and completely counterproductive when it comes to achieving a two-state solution—many hon. Members have said that that may be the deliberate intention of some—or for that matter, I would argue, when it comes to achieving an Israel that is safe and secure within its borders.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment.
The violence is criminal too. We are grossly alarmed at the expansion, including the proposed E1 settlement bloc, and at the Israeli’s Government’s legislative changes to entrench Government control.
I know that not everything we have done has pleased everybody, and that we have not gone as far as many would like, but it is important to say that we have taken action. We have recognised Palestinian statehood, although I note that some people do not support that. We have stopped negotiations on a free trade agreement, although I know that some people do not support that, as we have just heard. We have strengthened the enforcement of tariff differentials between green-line Israel and the illegal settlements, but to be honest, I do not think it is as effective as we would like it to be. That is one of the significant problems both for what we are doing now and for what we might want to do in the future.
We have also suspended and blocked military and dual-use licences for equipment that could be used, or is being used, in humanitarian abuse in Gaza. We have sanctioned individuals and organisations linked to the settler movement. We have recently pushed the Charity Commission to look into UK charities that are linked to activities in the illegal settlements.
Let me be absolutely clear: of course we support Israel’s right to exist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, certainly not on the Government side of the House, is anti-Israel, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) suggested. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the activities of the Israeli Government without wanting to undermine the existence of the Israeli state. That is a really important distinction to make.
The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that many UK businesses are engaged in perfectly legitimate trade in green-line Israel, which is a powerhouse in many sectors including high tech, pharmaceuticals and so on. I pay tribute to those who have established strong economic relations between Israel and the UK, and, for that matter, between Palestine and the UK—I would like to strengthen that latter connection more. I would like to name UK companies that engage in trade in medicines, food and beverages, and financial services completely legitimately, and in a way that will be supported by everybody in this Chamber, in green-line Israel. Frankly, however, I will not do so for fear of reprisals against those companies, and that in itself tells a tale about the toxicity of this debate.
As I have said, the settlements are illegal. There is therefore a legal obligation on us as a Government not to aid or assist the occupation. The immediate corollary of that is that we need to stop UK businesses providing economic support and legitimacy to illegal settlements. Of course, we want to design measures to stop trade with settlements in a way that balances that with enabling British businesses and citizens to benefit from a strong trading relationship with Israel and with Palestine. That is one of the tricks we have to pull off.
There are four key things that we could do and are seriously considering. First, we could ban imports to the UK of goods from the illegal settlements. I think all UK consumers would want us to do this effectively, and lots of supermarkets and other chains have been looking to do it in their own way. The challenge is—and this is not an excuse, to respond to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse); it is just a fact—that there is no properly verifiable means of determining the real source. [Interruption.] No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the argument, he can criticise me afterwards if he wants to. This situation is very different from Ukraine, because in Ukraine there is a verifiable process to determine whether something is from occupied Crimea or from Ukraine. That is a significant difference. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is a challenge.
Andy McDonald
If that is a problem and we want to implement the ban, the issue of distinguishing the goods is Israel’s problem; it should not be ours. We should not be held over a barrel by being told that distinguishing goods is a problem for us. It is Israel’s problem to distinguish which goods to prevent, and we should ban those goods in totality.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point, but the danger is that, if we end up banning all trade with Israel, we fall foul of the other problems I have mentioned.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress, and then I will give way.
The second thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK goods to the illegal settlements. Members have talked, for instance, of banning the sale of UK machinery. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, referred to one particular company. Here, too, the challenge is that goods move in and out very freely between the illegal settlements and green-line Israel, and that poses a challenge for us. It is not insurmountable, but it is a challenge.
Andy Slaughter
I really do appreciate the steps the Government have taken. I particularly appreciate the recognition of the state of Palestine, because the embassy is in my constituency, and I was very proud to be there to see the flag raised. I want the Minister to be part of the almost total consensus here today, but that does mean being unambiguous. The problem with saying, “There are these problems,” or, “We can advise and encourage companies, but we cannot force them,” is that it is saying it is a bit legal or a bit illegal. We want a decisive view on this: we want settlement goods to be banned.
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend must have misheard, or maybe I misspoke in some way, because I am saying very clearly that there are four things we could do and are seriously considering doing. The important thing is that, where there are challenges, we need to overcome them. It is not that they become an excuse for inaction.
Chris Bryant
I will just go through the third and fourth points, because they are important.
The third thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK services to the illegal settlements. To my mind, it must be completely wrong for a UK business to enable the construction of a block of flats or a road, for instance, in the settlements, by providing finance, insurance, architectural services, logistical support or, as has been referred to in the debate, selling properties in the illegal settlements. All of that is a perfectly legitimate area where we should consider banning exports of UK services to the settlements. Likewise, the fourth area we are considering taking action on is banning imports to the UK of services from the settlements.
Chris Bryant
Just one more moment, and I then I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) would like to intervene first.
Members are absolutely right that other countries are either considering or are in the process of introducing a variety of different bans. As the Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has said, we have had conversations with some of them. Some are expressing concerns about whether what they are going to do will actually be effective. Sometimes I am all for declaratory legislation, but I am much more in favour of doing things that actually take effect. That is one of the key considerations for us.
Let me be absolutely clear: I do not think that any of the legal or logistical problems is insurmountable. We are actively considering what a trade ban that directly targets illegal settlements would look like.
Chris Murray
What does “actively considering” mean? Is there anything active about it? Can the Minister refer to meetings, instructions or deadlines that would manifest as active consideration?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I have asked officials to produce advice on how we might proceed.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman asks, from a sedentary position, by when? I think my timeline may be rather limited in this post, but as Tagore said:
“The one who plants trees, knowing that he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life.”
I have been trying to progress some of this work. We have not got to a place where we are able to announce anything yet, but that is why I am saying we are actively considering it.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I do want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
I just have a couple more points to make. Any measures must be enforceable, effective and not have unintended consequences on our legitimate trade, for instance in medicines, with green-line Israel. The worst of all possible outcomes would be measures that are morally declaratory but ineffective or ineffectual, and that are not capable of being implemented.
There are several routes we could go down. Members have mentioned the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There was a set of suggestions, not all that different from some of the ideas that have come up to us already, from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. That is an option available to us, but there are other routes we might want to explore.
I really wish that I were able to say more today, but it really is not words that are needed. I fully understand and have heard very clearly, as have the whole of the Government, that it is action that is needed. I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) because he is very keen, but he will have to be very quick.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend, while he is still in post. Very briefly, he will be aware of the mockery that is the situation with dual-use goods between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Surely we can have some sort of ban on the products we are supplying that are essentially enabling civilisational erasure in Palestine?
Chris Bryant
I will write to my hon. Friend in answer to that point, as I am very keen to let my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central speak.
As I said, it is not words that are needed on this issue, but actions. I very much hope those might be imminent.
Abtisam Mohamed
I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank everybody for their excellent contributions: those who are here with us now in the Chamber and those who were not able to make a contribution—I know many colleagues have left now but wanted to make interventions. I thank the Minister for his action and the work that will be taken forward. If he is willing, while he is still in position, to meet the many of us who are really keen to ensure that we do have tangible action, it would be greatly appreciated.
I say to the shadow Minister that I think he may have misunderstood. This issue is about the west bank. The west bank is occupied territory. That is recognised. Governments of all shades in the past have recognised that it is occupied territory. The debate is specifically about banning trade in that particular area, so I am not sure whether there was confusion about what we are actually proposing or indeed debating today.
I thank the Minister for his contribution, and please let us arrange a meeting so that we can take this forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, a number of Conservative MPs visited my constituency. That is entirely understandable, as we have fantastic event spaces and hospitality. Most of those Conservative MPs notified me in advance that they would be attending, with one notable exception: the Leader of the Opposition. Surely we should expect the Leader of the Opposition to set the standards, adhere to them, and make sure that we all know about the leadership that she wants to instil. Can you advise me on how we can make sure that those in positions of leadership meet the expectations and demonstrate the standards that we all agree to in this place?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for informing the right hon. Member to whom he has referred. The document entitled “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that a
“failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
A party political activity is not a purely private visit, and I hope that by stating this very clearly from the Chair, it will reduce the frequency of such discourtesies in future.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, constituents from Newcastle-under-Lyme visited this mother of all Parliaments. We went down to the Terrace, where I was informed that the ever-charming and hospitable Richard Pengelly, the long-term linchpin of Strangers, will be retiring next Thursday after almost 40 years of service to this House and to Members of all parties, from all four nations of our United Kingdom of varying degrees and lengths of service. I know that you think very fondly of Richard, as do I and colleagues on both sides of the House. As we give thanks for Richard’s decades of service to Parliament, can you advise me on the best way for this House to place on the record our collective thanks to Richard Pengelly? What secrets he must have!
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Let us not dwell on the secrets of the barmen. However, he will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, even though this occupant of the Chair might have a keen interest. I am sure we all wish Richard well for his retirement.
British Industry Supercharger: Ceramics
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
At the outset of this Adjournment debate on ceramics, I declare my interest as a member of the GMB trade union and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ceramics, for which the secretariat is provided by Ceramics UK. I also want to place on the record the support that has recently been given to the sector under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. The £120 million that has been provided is a massive boost to a sector that had all but been forgotten and was worried that it was on a managed decline towards the end of a ceramics manufacturing base in the UK.
We know that there is work to do with that money. The sector and the unions are coming together as we speak, and they are working with the Business Secretary’s officials to make sure that every penny of the money that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been able to find for us goes towards protecting jobs, safeguarding manufacturing and making sure that the sector has a viable future, as it is so important to the constituency that I represent.
Gareth Snell
The sector is also important to my hon. Friends’ constituencies in other parts of Staffordshire.
I will rehearse some of the figures, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, given that I am a proud MP who represents a brickworks, you will be aware that ceramics offer a multitude of benefits to our economy. The sector employs 20,000 people, generates around £2 billion for our economy, and is responsible for £600 million-worth of exports. One can walk around pretty much any part of the country and come across a ceramic product that is made in the UK, be it bricks, tiles, tableware, or steel that is made using refractory-grade ceramics. I say this often, but I will say it again: we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics, so everything that the sector does contributes towards the greater good of UK plc.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
What strikes me about the support we give to the ceramics sector as a Government is that, while we are making a big commitment—and the right commitment—to give British people homes by delivering 1.5 million houses, we could simultaneously support our bricks industry, and the building sector more widely. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we are backing British, building British and buying British, it is important that we ensure that that sector support comes through from Government?
Gareth Snell
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been pursuing that for a long time. The ceramics industry is a great example of where procurement rules could be geared more towards supporting domestic manufacturing, not least in bricks. If we are going to use Homes England money to subsidise, at cost to the British taxpayer, the building of the homes we need in this country, we should insist that the companies that build them are buying their bricks from British manufacturers. It is a circular economy, it is good for our environment, and bricks have a long-term life of over 150 years—much better than timber and cladding.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour agree that the best way to do what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) suggest is for the Government to get behind my 10-minute rule Bill to back British bricks?
Gareth Snell
There are many wonderful 10-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that support the ceramics sector, and my hon. Friend’s back British bricks Bill is one of them. More to the point, it makes economic and environmental sense, rather than importing bricks from around the world. We have the capacity in the UK to manufacture enough bricks to meet the housing targets that the Government have rightly set. We can also then ensure that the bricks reflect the sorts of build that we want in those communities—Staffordshire blue bricks in Staffordshire, and the sorts of bricks that are proudly made in Hampshire for your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an important part of who we are, and what places look like, that the materials that houses are built from reflect the materials available.
The Minister will know that ceramics is now a huge part of our defence industry. The air filtration systems in nuclear submarines are made from a ceramic component that is serviced in Stoke-on-Trent. The ceramic coating necessary for small modular reactors, which will hopefully be made in Derby, is required because it can resist the heat that is generated at the speed at which they will revolve. The filtration systems for most metal products in this country go through a small ceramic piece—it looks like a fruit pastel—that filters out the impurities while withstanding the intense temperatures of molten metal.
Without those small technical ceramics, the bigger manufacturing activities that we undertake in this country simply would not be possible, and that is before we get on to the advanced ceramic materials that are available for heat recovery and green technology advancements, and before we think about the biomedical implications. There are ceramic components that can now be used for hip and elbow replacements, which have much less likelihood of being rejected by the body because they are a natural compound and the bone grafting takes easier.
There are countless opportunities for ceramics to play a real-world solution to the challenges we face. They are often hidden in plain sight; we just need to look for them. That is before we get to the beloved tableware and giftware that made my city so famous, and that we see across this place and in the tiles on our floors.
Adam Jogee
I may seek another intervention, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises an important point. He will know, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, that my cousin got married in New York relatively recently. My wife and I went, and we went to an exhibition where we came across a Staffordshire plate made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I shrieked with delight; my wife thought I was being weird. The amazing thing was that I told my Staffordshire colleagues, and we got a history lesson from my hon. Friend. That just shows that in every corner of our globe, British ceramics, and particularly Staffordshire ceramics, are flying the flag for team GB.
Gareth Snell
I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the Copeland plate that he saw, which was made in the old Copeland factory not far from my current constituency office. Again, that demonstrates the soft power that we have in the export market. Mr Speaker himself commissions ceramic products from Stoke-on-Trent as part of the giftware he hands out when he receives dignitaries from around the world. I am proud that things made in Stoke-on-Trent find themselves gracing palaces around the world.
The Minister will know, however, that it has been a tough time for ceramics. Ceramics is predominantly a gas-based industry, and the cost of gas power is almost three times what it was in 2019. In 2019, we were looking at about 40p per therm; today, it is 116p per therm. I genuinely appreciate that the Minister does not control the international wholesale gas price and, as I have on occasions disagreed with the Opposition, drilling will not necessarily bring down that price. However, it is nevertheless a fact that it costs three times as much today to fire a product, whether it be a brick or a plate, as it did in 2019.
It has been estimated by the TUC and GMB through their “Save British ceramics” policy document that 78% of the heat capacity needed to meet the ceramics manufacturing base in this country could come from electrification. It is not impossible to electrify. However, the Minister will also know that electricity prices in this country are significantly higher than in our European counterparts.
That is all before we get on to the issue of the illegal dumping in this country of products that are made using subsidised Russian gas through non-EU countries. We do have a genuine problem with the competitive nature of the products that we make based on the energy that they consume. That is where we have been talking to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry about the supercharger scheme. We were disappointed that ceramics in their entirety were not included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme. We welcome the fact that small technical ceramics have been included—that step has been genuinely welcomed across the sector. The pitch we want to continue to make today is for the rest of the sector to be considered for the supercharger scheme as part of the ongoing consideration that the Department is running.
There is a perversity to the supercharger scheme. Industries that are part of it receive all the benefits of being in it, receiving discounts on some of the policy costs and some of the transmission costs; industries that are not in it not only do not receive those benefits, but actually pay towards those that are part of it. Being out of the scheme therefore means paying for the industries that are in it. We have the perverse nature of energy-intensive industries like ceramics subsidising the energy costs of energy-intensive industries such as steel, some of the chemical sector and some of the metal sector.
That is not something the Government have done by design; it is just the way the system has developed over time, by trying to make it cost neutral to the Government and passing those costs on to higher energy users. That is unfair—it is. It means that the costs of the electricity that could be used in factories around Stoke-on-Trent and around the UK are higher because organisations that use as much energy as we do are getting a subsidy and a discount. That needs to be changed.
The sector does want to move towards electrification. We really welcome the fact that part of the £120 million secured by the Secretary of State was for capital costs to allow factories to move towards heat recovery technology and towards electrification of processes, where possible. However, the challenge is that while the electrification process may be covered in some of the capital costs, the running costs of the electric process, compared with the gas process, means that the savings are marginal and, in some cases, it is more expensive. I know that the Secretary of State is working as quickly as he can, and I know that the Government say they are working at pace on trying to bring down those industrial electricity costs, but at the moment that is an impediment to realising some of the good work that we could do as a result of the investment that the Secretary of State has brought forward.
I would just ask the Secretary of State to think about which of the SIC codes he would consider including in the supercharger scheme. Given that we have an ambition in this country to build 1.5 million houses, ensuring that every community has homes that my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues can move into must be part of that. If product code 23320—bricks and tiles in baked clay—could be included, that would benefit manufacturers in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). Manufacturers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), home to Ibstock, would also benefit from that. Given that we want to try to encourage house building, this seems like an absolute no-brainer.
There are also issues around product code 23200, which are refractory products. As I have said, to make steel in this country, refractory-grade ceramics that can withstand the intense heat of that process are needed. At the moment, we are becoming dependent on potentially importing those sorts of ceramics into the UK in order to make steel. Given that we are putting a significant amount of money into being able to increase the production of steel in this country because of our sovereign capability demands, it makes absolute sense that we insulate the supply chain for that process, which includes refractory-grade ceramics. Again, including those manufacturers in the supercharger scheme would be a huge benefit to them and make us less dependent upon imports. Given the geopolitical instability that we face, being able to do this by ourselves in our own country makes absolute sense.
On house building, every house needs some form of bathroom. If my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) were here, he would talk about Armitage Shanks and the famous sanitaryware that it makes. Product code 23420 is ceramics and sanitaryware. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme tries to make a further intervention, I acknowledge that in his constituency, he has Silverdale Bathrooms, which makes sanitaryware. We should be supporting domestic manufacturers in this country to build the houses that we need. Without that support, we become dependent on imports.
Finally, a product code that is close to my heart: 23410 —the ceramic household and ornamental object. I appreciate that including it in the scheme is a harder sell because of the strategic importance of those products to the country, but I say to the Secretary of State that one of the programmes that this Government have quite rightly introduced is Pride in Place, which is about saying to communities, “We know who you are, and we are proud of what you do.” When he visited Emma Bridgewater, he saw the pride on the faces of the workers who make the mugs, plates and tableware—and he had a go himself, and was very good.
There is a sense of identity in having an industry reflected in a community, and it being supported and helped. While there may not be an immediate economic argument for the inclusion of tableware and giftware in the supercharger scheme, there is undoubtedly an argument about community identity and pride in place. This is about protecting jobs in communities like mine, which have lost so much over many years of de-industrialisation, while simultaneously saying to the thousands of workers who make the things that we eat off, give to our friends, and buy for weddings and birthdays, “We recognise the important social value of what you make and your contribution to the colour and joy of our lives.” I think that is a powerful argument that shows that ceramics should included in the supercharger.
This is not a case of the sector simply asking for a handout. I think the Secretary of State would accept that the sector is doing what it can to decarbonise, and recognises that decarbonisation does not mean deindustrialisation. It recognises that it has to do more on heat recovery, and to ensure that it can sustain itself.
The funding we have received has been an incredible benefit to the sector. The next step, to ensure that we go from surviving to thriving, is including the sector in the supercharger. I hope when the Secretary of State is able to make announcements about the review, which we hope is coming soon, he will lift the hearts of all the workers he met at Emma Bridgewater by saying, “You’re in the scheme, and we’ve got your back.”
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
It is a real pleasure to be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has made an outstanding case. I can reassure him that when we make decisions, they go beyond the sheer economics of investment, and into considerations about communities and sectors. The societal impact, should more ceramics companies fail in the cities that he and his colleagues represent, was very much in my mind. People of my age and generation remember very well that de-industrialisation was an active decision made by the Government in the 1980s in parts of the country, particularly the north-east, east midlands and elsewhere. It left a scarring impact that has crossed generations. I would not allow that to happen again on my watch.
My hon. Friend makes his case very eloquently. Going up to Emma Bridgewater the day after I announced the package was a very memorable occasion. It shows his graciousness that he would say that my handiwork on that day was anything other than basic. His contribution shows the importance of the ceramics industry to many communities around the country, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent and other manufacturing heartlands. Ceramics is a sector with a proud history and heritage, a highly skilled workforce and an important role in local economies and the wider economy and supply chains around the country.
Peter Kyle
I will, in just a moment. My hon. Friend was not here to hear his colleagues’ contributions earlier. He will regret that, because they were Churchillian.
The Government recognise the importance of and understand the challenges that the sector has faced in recent years. The British industry supercharger was designed to support the industries most prone to carbon leakage due to high electricity costs faced by UK businesses. The supercharger supports the most electricity and trade-intensive industries by reducing their policy and network costs. Some electricity-intensive ceramics firms do receive the supercharger, and they make up around 10% of the industry.
Dave Robertson
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for not quite being able to get here for the kick-off. The Secretary of State talks about the importance of the ceramics industry, both in economic and heritage terms. Does he agree that ceramics firms offer us a huge amount of soft power around the world? The “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” and the “Made in England” marks are so important, and in my constituency, we have Armitage Shanks, a name known all around the world for the products that it provides. Does he agree with that point?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. Of course, he is completely correct. The impact that these brands have around the world has not been made recently, and is not to be taken lightly; it has come on the back of generations of extraordinarily hard work, precision and success. That is why the industry has the global recognition that it does. We celebrate the success of the past, and the impact and importance the industry has for communities, but I recognise the contribution that it should and will make in the future as well.
The businesses I mentioned will have benefited from the recent uplift to the network charging compensation scheme, which now saves eligible ceramics businesses 90% on their electricity network charges. However, the reality is that much of the sector is gas-intensive, rather than electricity-intensive, and UK gas prices are more internationally competitive than electricity prices, notwithstanding the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made.
The Department for Business and Trade intends to review eligibility for the supercharger this year, and I encourage—in fact, I implore—the ceramics sector to engage with that process. Any changes to eligibility will be subject to consultation and ministerial approval, and the Government must always bear in mind the cost of potential changes and who would pay for them. The Government are also taking wider action to support over 10,000 manufacturing businesses in the industrial strategy growth sectors, and in foundational industries that provide key inputs for those sectors, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Some advanced and technical ceramics will be eligible to receive that support from 2027, and it will reduce their electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour. Members should not forget the announcement I made earlier this year: qualifying businesses may get a bonus covering the costs of this year, too.
The Government recognise that ceramics manufacturers are still under pressure, and I have been saddened to learn of the closure of, and job losses at, iconic ceramic manufacturers in recent years, most notably at Denby Pottery. Unfortunately, manufacturing ceased there, as administrators were unable to find a buyer for the business. Officials in my Department are working with the administrators as they take their statutory process forward, and I pass on my very sincere and heartfelt sympathies to all the workers, families and local communities that have been impacted by the closure. Our priority now is to support those who have been affected. We are working across Government and with local partners and relevant agencies to ensure that support is in place for workers who have been made redundant, and for those in the wider area impacted by Denby’s administration. That includes ensuring a joined-up, local response, and ensuring that employees can access the help and assistance that is and should be available to them.
It is clear that the ceramics industry faces significant challenges, but despite those, the industry has great potential to be forward-facing as we transition towards a decarbonised economy. To unlock the industry’s potential and help support ceramics firms, the Government have recently announced a £120 million ceramics industry support scheme. That is a substantial intervention, focused on the needs of the ceramics sector. The scheme will back capital investment, and energy efficiency and decarbonisation projects, as well as providing operational support for successful applicants to the fund who require additional help to manage any increased ongoing costs. Ceramics are crucial for our modern way of living, from house building to smartphone screens, from plates to planes, and from engines to mugs and space shuttles, as well as all the other products that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned.
This funding will support the industry right across the United Kingdom, including in my hon. Friend’s home city of Stoke-on-Trent. The scheme will help to modernise an industry with a proud heritage, and the Government are working closely with the industry on its design. Officials in the Department for Business and Trade are engaging broadly, including with the sector’s main trade association, Ceramics UK, and individual businesses, to ensure that the scheme truly helps the sector in the long term and secures its long-term competitiveness. We want a thriving ceramics industry that continues to provide skilled employment, supports local communities, drives innovation and remains globally competitive.
Adam Jogee
Before the Secretary of State concludes, I thank him for his engagement, his respect towards me, as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and my Staffordshire colleagues, and for his support on this important issue. We would not have that £120 million package without his tenacity, and his encouragement to our colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury. For that, we are very grateful.
Peter Kyle
That was a very gracious intervention—I am glad I took it. I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency in the run-up to the general election, and I saw how much hard work and dedication he put into his campaign; I have also seen the clear-sighted representation, and heard the voice, that he has provided since coming to this place.
Announcing these schemes is never easy. When we are minded to provide support, is difficult to go through the process without setting hares running or setting expectations too high. When there is ambiguity in the process, we appreciate, when we get to the other side, just how sincere everyone is at moments like this. In this Government and in me, hon. Members have a Government and a Secretary of State who strive, and put great store by the heritage and importance of certain businesses and sectors—not just the economic wellbeing of communities, but the social and cultural wellbeing of communities. Those are all interlinked, and we fail to recognise that at our peril.
The ceramics industry deserves support, and this Government have demonstrated that through the £120 million package. We have chosen to deliver support through the ceramics industry support scheme to enable the industry to modernise, decarbonise and optimise, protecting the long-term competitiveness of the sector in the most efficient way. I thank all my parliamentary colleagues who advocated for that support. The Department, other Ministers and I look forward to continuing to work with Members as we develop the scheme and get it ready for deployment.
Despite a difficult business environment, the ceramics sector continues to demonstrate resilience and innovation, and I remain confident in the future of this important industry. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central once again for securing this debate, and other Members for their interventions.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 9th July 2026
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 July 2026 - (9 Jul 2026)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting, but there is loads of water—silver is fizzy, blue is flat. I am happy to give a blanket permission for people to take off their jackets. Officially, you are meant to ask me individually, but given the heatwave, take them off if you like.
New Clause 6
Health Data Charter
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish an independent body (to be known as the "Sovereign Health Data Trust”) for the purpose of creating a Health Data Charter.
(2) The membership of the Trust should include—
(a) people with a diverse range of backgrounds; and
(b) health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.
(3) The Charter must—
(a) set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS;
(b) include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data;
(c) ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs;
(d) provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment;
(e) set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS;
(f) be designed in such a way as to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space in technical terms, including through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles within the NHS.
(4) The Sovereign Health Data Trust will—
(a) hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment;
(b) have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit;
(c) ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available;
(d) publish detailed minutes of all meetings discussing potential uses of health data; and
(e) ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.”—(Helen Morgan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The new clause would require the creation of a health data charter, and includes measures to protect data so as to ensure privacy and reasonable usage.
Patients should be in control of their data. As we have discussed in previous sittings, we do not think that the Bill goes far enough to provide reassurances in that regard. Everyone agrees with the need for the single patient record, but there is genuine risk—one that I do not think anyone in this room wants—that it could be derailed over very understandable and reasonable data privacy concerns. Sufficient guardrails and transparency are key, especially for secondary uses of health data. As we have discussed on many occasions, trust is essential for the system to succeed.
That is why we have tabled this new clause on a health data charter that would set out guiding principles for data sharing across the national health service, including for the single patient record. It would be led by data experts, as well as, importantly, clinicians and patient representatives. Ensuring that the voices of doctors and patients are heard is central to building trust and the widespread use of any data-sharing systems or technologies.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq.
New clause 6 raises an important question on how we govern health data, which one of the greatest assets of the NHS. The development of the single patient record platform and database, and the wider use of the linked NHS data, present enormous opportunities.
When used responsibly, healthcare data can support much more personalised care, improve NHS planning, accelerate medical research, enable earlier diagnoses and help develop new medicines and treatments. It can also improve efficiency and strengthen the evidence base for healthcare decisions. However, those benefits can be realised only if the public have the confidence that their data will be used safely, ethically and transparently. Public trust must be the foundation of any successful health data policy.
NHS health data is currently overseen by NHS England, following the merger of NHS Digital into that organisation. With the Government proceeding with the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions elsewhere, it is right that we consider future governance arrangements. In principle, I agree that an independent body may be needed to ensure and maintain the security, integrity and responsible stewardship of NHS data. There is definitely scope for an independent body to oversee the management and regulation of the public’s health data. That proposal places patient privacy at its heart, and would strengthen safeguards against misuse, give patients greater control over how their information is used, and provide meaningful mechanisms to opt out of certain forms of data sharing. It also promotes the use of anonymisation and trusted research environments, allowing valuable research to take place while reducing the risk of inappropriate disclosure. We have discussed inappropriate disclosure by a malign actor, or even inadvertent disclosure, during debate on other clauses.
The Liberal Democrat new clause also seeks to address a concern that has attracted significant public attention: where commercial organisations derive substantial value from NHS data, the NHS itself should share in that benefit. Although we did not support a number of Liberal Democrat proposals because of the inadvertent implications of their drafting, I still have sympathy with the overall thrust of what they were trying to achieve. There is a strong argument that the value generated from the data contributed by NHS patients should help to support future patient care and research.
Transparency is another important feature. Publishing data-sharing agreements, increasing openness around decision making and consulting the public on significant new data initiatives would help to strengthen public confidence. The proposed trust would bring those principles together by overseeing data use, monitoring compliance with governance standards, ensuring transparency and, where necessary, suspending access for organisations that misuse their data.
Of course, any new governance framework must avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or delaying important research. To reassure the Committee that the framework would not create a block or dampener, or insert inertia into the system, will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell us what evidence she found when drafting the new clause? If we are going to do something like this, the oversight should be proportionate, and it should complement, rather than duplicate or frustrate, any existing regulatory responsibilities.
Ultimately, the new clause has potential benefits. It would establish a clear social contract for NHS health data, which would hopefully protect privacy, support research and innovation, maintain public trust and ensure that patients and the NHS share in the benefits arising from the responsible use of a very valuable national asset. In terms of what it could be used for, that data is probably second to none in the world, but I am concerned about adding extra bureaucracy and inertia to the system, when we want a vibrant life-sciences industry that is able to use the data for the benefit of British citizens and patients. What does the hon. Member for North Shropshire think would happen in that case?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has set out the arguments clearly; I will just add some of my own views. As he stated, the single patient record provides a unique and special opportunity to improve efficiency across the whole health and social care space and to empower patients, but it faces significant challenges. As I said in an earlier sitting, perhaps one of the biggest challenges is ensuring that it means something in practice. In a previous debate, the Minister helpfully clarified that the data currently held on a great variety of databases and electronic record-keeping systems in the NHS will remain on those wide and disparate recording systems. It seems that the advantages will be realised only if those systems are able to speak together and are fully interoperable.
I know from a previous time in my career that, in reality, many such systems are not interoperable or are only part-interoperable, and that, even where they do speak to one another, the data is collected and recorded in different ways. Simple things—someone’s name, their age or the principal field of the issue for which they are presenting to a clinician—are recorded, but because the systems are not standardised, that data cannot be transferred between them easily.
The advantages of the single patient record will be realised only when all those systems are unified in some form, but the Bill does not address that directly. I am not necessarily suggesting that it should, but I do not see the Government acknowledging anywhere that systems are contracted and provided by private providers through procurement processes at a local level, and asking, “How do we knit that all together?” It seems that somebody somewhere will have to produce some gateway software or system to allow the single patient record to be accessed. If every other existing system needs to be able to feed into that, the public sector will have a huge role, and the private sector will sit behind it to try to deliver that. It seems a huge project that could be fraught with difficulty, it could take many years before the single patient record is established, regardless of when the Bill is passed—although I am sure it will be passed fairly soon.
New clause 6 seeks to address another significant issue with the single patient record: security and the control of data. The single patient record, if fully realised, will make it easier for data to be accessed and shared. Its very purpose is to ensure that systems and services are more integrated and data flows more freely, to avoid the ridiculous situations in which a GP fills out a patient note but cannot share it with a secondary care provider, so must print it out for the patient, or attach a PDF to an email, so that somebody at the other end can input it to their database.
One issue with making it easier to share data—including personal data of the most intimate kind—is that once it has been accessed by bad-faith operators, it is easier for them to run riot and cause an awful lot of damage. It is also much easier for wider access to be shared accidentally, because the whole system is lubricated by the single patient record. I therefore understand the reason for the health data charter as a cure for potential ills.
New clause 6(3)(b) states that the charter must
“include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation”.
That is a fantastic goal that we all support, but I do not necessarily agree that the measure will achieve that. It is an added layer of bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon asked a rhetorical question about the bureaucracy and effectiveness. I endorse that question and hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will answer it.
I am minded not to support the proposal, though I agree with what it tries to achieve. If the Minister does not support the new clause, will she explain how its aim of protecting people’s privacy will be delivered by the Bill? There seems to be great scope for the undermining and abuse of privacy, not just deliberately by bad faith actors, but inadvertently.
A second issue aim of the charter is the balance between the security of personal data and the recognition of the value of anonymised data gathered by the NHS for research and development. Fully anonymised data that cannot be unpicked through reverse engineering is of huge value, both commercially and for the public good. Commercial value and the public good are not necessarily opposed to each other; in fact, they often come together. The NHS should be able to exploit the value of that anonymised data—“exploit” is probably seen as a negative word—for the public good. How do we balance that with people’s right to privacy?
Again, there is the possibility of inadvertently using for a wider public good data that was intended to be anonymised but in which people can be identified. The charter tries to get to the heart of that issue as well, which I welcome. Indeed, new clause 6(4)(a) states that the sovereign health data trust will
“hold continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment”.
The Minister may not agree with the new clause, but how will the Government’s proposals balance the security of an individual’s personal data while exploiting, for the public good, the value of the huge depth of anonymised data that the NHS holds and will hold? It could be used to drive so much innovative research and development, for the benefit of health delivery not only in this country, but across the world. Such a valuable commodity has commercial value that could deliver financial benefit to the NHS. I think we all agree that we have not yet exploited that area to the fullest. There is an opportunity to do so with the single patient record—if it is done properly, with all the necessary safeguards.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East just said, new clause 6 seeks in essence to ensure that we have good data security and control, with which I agree. Trust is important, data security is important and supporting research with anonymised data is a good thing to do.
What would the new clause do? First, it would establish an independent body known as a sovereign health data trust. In essence, that is a group of people who have been put together. The new clause does not say how big the group would be—I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire had its size in mind—but it describes a group of people with
“a diverse range of backgrounds…and…health data experts, clinicians and patient representatives.”
Are the first group intended to be laypeople, rather than experts? What does the hon. Lady mean by a “diverse range of backgrounds”? Does that relate to protected characteristics, or is she looking for a farmer from Northumberland and a lawyer from Islington, because they have different backgrounds? It is not entirely clear what she means, so I would be grateful if she clarified that. Additionally, however big that group is, who would decide how it is composed and by what criteria? Who would be responsible?
The sovereign health data trust would be charged with creating a health data charter. That leads me to my second question: what is a health data charter? In essence, a health data charter—as defined in the new clause—must
“set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS”,
and, as my hon. Friend the for Isle of Wight East said,
“include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data”.
That is important, because we have heard in the media several examples of data being put up for sale or leaked, and the problems caused by that.
The charter must also
“ensure patients have control of their data, including providing relevant opt-outs”.
I am glad to see that bit about relevant opt-outs. We have talked about the importance of the record being shared not as a whole, but in pieces. Things such as obstetric or sexual health ought perhaps to be consented to separately. Patient control of the data is important. How would the hon. Member for North Shropshire deal with safeguarding issues in the control of data, particularly in relation to children?
The new clause sets out that the charter must
“provide that all health data is held anonymously and accessed through a trusted research environment”—
which seems reasonable—and must
“set out ways to retain and protect the value of health data in England, including providing measures to invest a share of the income generated from new medicines or treatments developed with that health data to be invested back into the NHS”.
Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Lichfield and I discussed the important value of the NHS data—I think he said that it was the most valuable dataset in the world, and he might well be right. I was a bit confused by that part of the new clause, because we talked earlier this week about the Health Services Safety Investigations Body being able to sell time and training and share expertise, including with private sector organisations overseas. The Government changed that in the Bill, so that they would only be able to retain costs and not make any money for the Treasury. When we put amendment 56 to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained. I do not know what the difference is between using NHS data for research and the HSSIB using their expertise for training overseas organisations. I would be grateful to understand that.
The charter must be
“designed in such a way to render it interoperable with the European Health Data Space”.
The European Health Data Space regulations were introduced in March 2025. We are in a transition period, and they will be implemented in 2027 and 2029. It should be interoperable in technical terms
“through the promotion of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles”.
What is the European Health Data Space? Essentially, it is a single patient record for Europe. Its instructions say member states may—I underline the word may—offer
“an opt-out option for the cross-border exchange of electronic health data under EHDS.”
I do not understand the Liberal Democrats’ argument for that, because they have made a strong argument throughout Committee stage that data needs to be shared carefully. They advanced some clauses that will ensure that data is held in the United Kingdom and that we use British tech where possible. New clause 6 would make us interoperable with the European system and presumably move us towards European systems.
Gregory Stafford
I do not mean this as a cheeky point, but is it not the case that clearly, as with everything, the Liberal Democrats think that the European Union can do no wrong? They do not see the same problems of data that they have expressed in other clauses because they want to rejoin the European Union. Therefore, they conceive that it can have no possible harm to British subjects.
Dr Johnson
Indeed. When reading it, it is ironic to me that they seem comfortable with data being shared across the EU but not across our own country. It did not make complete sense to me, but the hon. Lady for North Shropshire may be able to tell us more about that in her summing up.
What else will the sovereign health data trust group do? It will have
“continuous oversight of all health data and oversee the trusted research environment”.
Having oversight over “all health data” is quite a big job. Again, what sort of resources does the hon. Lady think that will entail, and what does she have in mind in terms of the cost and bureaucracy of that? It would also
“have power to recall or restrict an organisation’s access to data if it has reason to believe that the data is not being used for public or patient benefit.”
What is the threshold for that? A lot of these organisations will be working in a commercial environment; if they receive a letter, potentially from a competitor, saying there is a concern, does that meet the threshold? What would the threshold be?
Having decided that the data might not be used for public benefit, what investigatory powers does the hon. Lady envisage the trust having to establish whether that is the case or not? What if it does receive some concerning correspondence, it does the investigation under the investigatory powers that it has been given, it decides that it does not think it is being used for public or patient benefit, and it restricts the organisation’s ability to access data? That will potentially have a significant financial penalty and it may affect patients’ access to healthcare, too. What right of appeal would the organisation have? Who would they appeal to and how would it work? On the wording, commercial activity may well benefit patients, which is sometimes forgotten.
The next thing the data trust will have to do is
“ensure that all data sharing arrangements with a non-NHS organisation are transparent, with all health data contracts entered into by a public body made publicly available”.
I would like some more detail about that. Would that include anonymously provided data? What effect would that have on the research environment and the integrity of research done under commercial arrangements? What about the costs? Would any costs be shared and what effect would that have on future commercial negotiations when the Government are trying to get the next organisation to look at the data? What level of detail made publicly available in the contract would need to be provided?
The trust would need to publish minutes of their meetings, which seems reasonable. It would need to
“ensure all health data collection and sharing initiatives are preceded by public consultation, involvement and awareness.”
Do the Liberal Democrats really intend for all data collection to go through public consultation? If, as we talked about regarding corridor care, the Government wanted to know how many people are waiting more than 24 hours in A&E, would they have to do a public consultation to collect that data? It seems overly bureaucratic.
Gregory Stafford
Is that not part of the problem with the wording of the new clause? It is not clear, from the new clause, what is NHS data and what is the patient’s data, and who owns which bit of it. The problem with the drafting of the new clause is that it appears to cover every single piece of data held by the NHS, whether it directly relates to a patient or not. Additionally, if the Government were to collect any other sort of data, even if on an aggregate basis, it would come under this. That would be totally unworkable and put an enormous burden of bureaucracy on the health service.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I would be interested in whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire has made any estimates of personnel time or cost that the proposal would entail.
In summary, the new clause would create an unelected committee removing democratic control. Essentially, it is asking a committee of unelected individuals to write and implement policy, which is the job of the Minister. That should be under ministerial control.
Joe Robertson
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an overarching issue here of public confidence in the safety of their data? That is not about one company or another; it is about ensuring that robust safeguards are in place for everyone and for every provider of a data and record-keeping system. If the public do not have confidence, they will understandably withdraw consent for their data being held. That will undermine the single patient record and the whole way in which health can be delivered efficiently in the best interests of patients.
Dr Johnson
I agree. I am sure that the purpose behind the new clause is to ensure that data is safe, but it removes democratic accountability from the process of developing the policy, which may reduce the public’s confidence in it. I agree with its underlying principles, but much of it is cumbersome and, as yet, undefined, so it is important that we get more detail and specificity.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for tabling this new clause. I am sympathetic to its intentions: the security of data, the transparency of use and even realising the value of data. Its principles are in the interests of the public and the NHS, but we do not consider it necessary to achieve our aims. It would impose onerous operational requirements and could have a damaging impact on the ability of the NHS to function.
There is also a significant overlap with the role of the independent national guardian and potentially that of the information commissioner. Once the functions of NHS England have transferred to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to respect and promote the privacy of recipients of health services and of adult social care in England, which is in addition to the requirements already set out in UK GDPR. The Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to the health and care sector relating to the processing of information to which NHS bodies must have regard. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to have regard to guidance given by the Health Research Authority on the disclosure of confidential information.
The proposed trust functions would also encroach significantly on the operational role intended for the health data research service, and would place cumbersome constraints on vital data collecting and sharing within the NHS. The new clause would mean that all health data collections and data-sharing initiatives would have to be preceded by public consultation. That would capture any of the essential collections that NHS England undertakes, and indeed any collection by NHS organisations, not to mention the use of that data. The burden would be considerable, with very real consequences for the ability of the NHS to use that data to improve outcomes for patients.
Likewise, I cannot see how requiring all health data to be held anonymously and accessed only through a trusted, secure research environment would be compatible with delivering direct care to a patient or using confidential patient information for planning and commissioning services or research. It seems that the new clause would prevent such uses. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Helen Morgan
Hon. and right hon. Members on the Committee will understand that we are talking about a single patient record that we do not understand much about yet, because most of the detail will come later. This new clause is attempting to establish what guardrails we would like to see for the protection of patient data when the single patient record is brought into existence
There are very genuine concerns about people’s health conditions becoming individually identifiable. If there is an individual in a single postcode with a rare condition, anonymising the data can essentially never happen. That is a genuine concern that people have. I hope that, when we get to Report stage, the Government will be able to give us a little more detail on what safeguards they intend to put in place over the use of that data. To that end, I do not intend to press this new clause to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take into account the concerns we have expressed about building trust and protecting data privacy, and will give us further reassurance at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Directors of public health
“After section 7B of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—
‘7BA Directors of public health
Each integrated care board must, for the purposes of exercising any public health functions directed by the Secretary of State, appoint a lead director of public health.’”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Directors of public health: requirements and functions—
“After section (73C) of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—
‘73D Directors of public health: requirements and functions
Directors of public health must—
(a) be an officer of the local authority and shall have responsibility for its public health functions,
(b) be an NHS consultant in public health responsible for giving independent professional public health advice and for promoting public debate on health matters,
(c) be a corporation sole and NHS body for working with others to initiate measures to improve the health of the people,
(d) be an officer of the Crown responsible for such functions as the Secretary of State may specify,
(e) as an officer of the Crown have power to draw the attention of the Chief Medical Officer and the Attorney General to events within the area of the local authority creating circumstances in which it might be appropriate to bring proceedings in the name of the Crown for public health purposes,
(f) be an officer of the National Health Service responsible for promoting the provision of services which are outcome-focused, are provided following a proper needs assessment and pay attention to the promotion of health and the prevention of illness,
(g) as an officer of the NHS, have power either personally (in the case of a body which primarily serves the population of the local authority which appointed the DPH) or through joint arrangements with other Directors of Public Health (in the case of a body which primarily serves the population of several local authorities) or through a collective arrangement established by the Chief Medical Officer (in the case of a body with a national remit) to appoint, or approve arrangements for the body to appoint, a consultant in public health to serve on the governing body of any NHS body (other than an NHS body which is a local authority), any NHS Foundation Trust, any of the bodies established under this Act or any of the bodies established under the Health & Social Care Act 2012 or any other legislation relating to the governance of the NHS (for the avoidance of doubt the consultant so appointed may be, but need not be, the Director of Public Health personally).
(h) as an officer of the NHS and of the local authority, have power either personally (in the case of a body which primarily serves all or part of the population of the local authority which appointed the DPH) or through joint arrangements with other Directors of Public Health (in the case of a body such as a joint board or combined authority which primarily serves the population of several local authorities) to appoint a consultant in public health to attend any local authority meeting and to advise the meeting whilst it is in session on matters affecting the health of the people (for the avoidance of doubt the consultant so appointed may be, but need not be, the Director of Public Health personally and a different consultant may be appointed for different meetings).
(i) be contractually required, subject to law, to carry out the functions in subsections (b) to (h) herewith as an independent health professional treating a population as a patient and pursuing the improvement of its health and to be contractually entitled not to be subject to any detriment by the local authority or by the Crown for so doing.’”
Dr Johnson
I want to briefly discuss these new clauses because I think that they are important, particularly because they were tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is an expert in the field. New clauses 11 and 24 relate to directors of public health. We know from the Government that prevention, and therefore public health, is extremely important. New clause 11 says:
“Each integrated care board must, for the purposes of exercising any public health functions directed by the Secretary of State, appoint a lead director of public health.”
New clause 24 sets out the requirements and functions of directors of public health—what such an individual will do.
Currently, every local authority must have a director of public health, which is set out in statute. They focus on three areas: health protection, health improvement and healthcare public health. They take the evidence in relation to their population, produce a vision, develop aims, deliver those aims and then produce a report annually to say how they are getting on with that process. The National Health Service Act 2006 says that that must be done across an upper tier or unitary local authority area, and that directors of public health must provide advice about public health to any ICBs that overlap with their area. ICBs also have a legal duty to seek advice on protecting public health when they are exercising their functions.
I think that we all agree across the Committee that public health is important, but I do have some questions. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not a member of the Committee, so she is not able to respond to any questions today. We have talked in this Committee about the representation of local authorities on ICBs and the fact that Government cuts of 50% have led to a merging of ICBs in a somewhat haphazard fashion, which means that there can be a clash between different areas.
I guess that my question for the Minister would be this: if this clause were to come into force and the ICBs that are no longer coterminous with the local authority upper-tier or unitary authority areas, would there be a duplication of work? My other concern would be that it would lead to a situation where there might be one director of public health with a vision to go one way, and another with a direction to go the other way. If that happened, how would the negotiation process work? I think this measure was brought in with good intent by a lady who is an expert in the field, but I have more questions than answers about how the clause will work in practice.
Gregory Stafford
It is very important that we consider these new clauses and amendments carefully, not least because, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, the hon. Member for Worthing West, who tabled them, has considerable expertise, being a public health consultant herself. I have the pleasure of sitting with the hon. Member on the Health and Social Care Committee and she brings her expertise to every single sitting. I am sure that the Minister has welcomed her questioning when she has appeared before that Committee.
It is really clear that, if we are going to make a success of the Bill, public health in all its guises needs to be at the forefront of our thinking about how we achieve better patient outcomes, better health and, more specifically, the Government’s stated aims in the 10-year plan to, first, shift care closer to home and, secondly, focus more on prevention rather than treatment. I am sure that across the House we agree with that ambition and therefore I can totally understand why the hon. Member for Worthing West has tabled these new clauses.
I suspect that the new clauses are also a reaction to something that we have already discussed in this Committee, which is the dislocation and now the separation of local authorities from ICBs, with the removal of their statutory functions on those boards, to be given to strategic mayoral authorities. Some of those strategic mayoral authorities exist but, as we have discussed at some length in the Committee, many of them do not exist and might never exist. I can see why the hon. Member for Worthing West is trying to ensure that the vital work of directors of public health in local authorities for their population areas is somehow safeguarded and included in the Bill.
That being said, I have some reservations about how these new clauses are currently drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already outlined many of them. Although strengthening public health leadership is an essential objective, new clause 24 defines the statutory role and legal status of directors of public health in this context without providing sufficient clarity about accountability or governance, or about how these new powers would interact with existing NHS and local authority structures. Potentially, there is a risk of creating overlapping responsibilities, blurred lines of accountability and additional bureaucracy at a time when integrated working should be simplified rather than made more complex.
Obviously, the hon. Member for Worthing West is not here to answer my questions. I ask the Minister this: if these new clauses are not pressed to a vote, or if they are but are not accepted by this Committee, how can she reassure me and the hon. Member for Worthing West that public health will still be at the forefront of the Bill, and that the removal of local authorities from ICBs will not have the impact that I think the hon. Member, who tabled these new clauses, is concerned about?
Karin Smyth
Further to that point, I absolutely want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, who is not a member of this Committee, and indeed the members of this Committee that the Government fully appreciate the important role of public health professionals. They bring critical expertise in population health intelligence, epidemiology and community co-design, and those capabilities are integral to the role of ICBs as strategic commissioners.
On new clause 11, there is already a statutory duty on ICBs to seek advice, and a statutory duty on local authorities to provide public health advice to ICBs. However, that does not mean that ICBs should be required to employ a director of public health directly. Local authorities already employ a director of public health and we expect ICBs to work collaboratively with their local authority partners and not to duplicate their work.
NHS England recently published the strategic commissioning framework and guidance for ICBs on strengthening the public health advice, both of which are clear that ICBs should work with local public health teams and stakeholders to draw upon their expertise to ensure a strong evidence base for commissioning decisions.
As the responsibilities of ICBs for commissioning NHS public health services grow, we expect them to continue to draw on the skills and expertise of local authority directors of public health, as well as other specialist public health expertise, including screening and immunisation leads, and the UK Health Security Agency. I absolutely agree that public health expertise is essential for ICBs to commission effectively and we have set out how they will access that; the basis for all this is of course the joint strategic needs assessment. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to require an ICB to appoint a lead director for public health in order to have access to such advice.
On new clause 24, as the Committee is aware, local authority directors of public health are advocates for the health of their population. They have a professional leadership role across the three domains of public health: health improvement, health protection and healthcare public health. Their work spans organisational boundaries. Although they are employed by local authorities and appointed jointly with the Secretary of State, their role is designed to bridge local government and the NHS. They are also required to provide objective, evidence-based advice, without political interference, and they are expected to be suitably qualified and regulated public health specialists who take a population-wide perspective to health outcomes and health inequalities.
At the heart of their role is their statutory responsibility to prepare an annual report on the health of their local population. That crucial document underpins the plans of health and wellbeing boards and, through them, the ICBs. Directors of public health are also required to be members of health and wellbeing boards, which will be the central mechanism for partnership working between local authorities and ICBs in the new neighbourhood health system. As such, directors of public health will be well placed to help to shape ICB system-wide plans and strategies on public health issues going forward, something that we discussed earlier in the Committee.
There is a statutory duty on ICBs to obtain appropriate and expert public health advice, and a legal duty on local authorities in turn, carried out by the director of public health and their team, to provide public health advice to ICBs. Beyond those requirements, the NHS, including ICBs, is of course free to employ its own senior public health professionals.
The proposed new clause risks creating some significant ambiguity around accountability and risk, constraining rather than enhancing the independence of directors of public health, which I am sure is not the intention of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham or of the Committee. I hope I can offer reassurance to the hon. Member and indeed to the Committee that we are proud of our strong and coherent public health system, that this Bill does not alter its importance and that we will continue to champion the role of directors of public health and ensure clarity in the new architecture. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Corridor Care Accountability
“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the prevalence of corridor care in NHS hospitals.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an analysis of data on the number of corridor incidents at the national, integrated care board, trust, and hospital level,
(b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken that year to reduce the number of corridor care incidents,
(c) the Secretary of State’s plans to reduce the number of corridor care incidents in the coming year, and
(d) information regarding the amount of funding directed toward reducing the number of corridor care incidents that year and funding allocated for such efforts in the future.
(3) Following the publication of a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must give evidence in front of a panel (to be called the “Corridor Care Tribunal”) including—
(a) patients,
(b) bereaved or affected families, and
(c) frontline NHS staff who have been impacted by corridor care.
(4) Panel members for a Corridor Care Tribunal under subsection (3) shall be identified by local Healthwatch organisations and NHS Royal Colleges.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.—(Helen Morgan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 56—Accident and Emergency: waiting times—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision relating to Accident and Emergency Department admission.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include the requirement for every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.
(3) The Secretary of State must establish and implement an Accident and Emergency Scheme (“the Scheme”) to support NHS hospital trusts to achieve the requirement set out in subsection (2).
(4) The Scheme must consider—
(a) creating safety-net social care beds,
(b) increasing step-down care,
(c) publishing a dedicated accident and emergency care workforce plan, and
(d) mandating a qualified clinician is present in every Accident and Emergency waiting room.
(5) The Secretary of State must have due regard to the final report of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in establishing the scheme.”
This new clause gives patients a legal right to be admitted into A&E within 12 hours from decision to admit and requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to achieve this.
New clause 84—Publication of data on avoidable deaths—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish every quarter the number of avoidable deaths where waits of more than 12 hours in accident and emergency departments was a contributory factor.
(2) The Secretary of State must make the data under subsection (1) available by integrated care board area.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish data on avoidable deaths caused by waits over 12 hours in A&E departments.
Helen Morgan
New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and to give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.
In the main Chamber yesterday, we had a Backbench Business debate on corridor care, introduced by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). There was a great deal of consensus across the House about the harm that corridor care causes to both patients and staff, and the requirement for urgency in dealing with that issue.
I am not going to remake the same speech that I made yesterday on corridor care for the Minister’s benefit, because she heard it yesterday and there is little value in repeating it. What I will say is that it is important that there is an understanding at a ministerial level of the personal impact that corridor care has on patients and their families.
That is the purpose of this new clause: to ensure that the Secretary of State is taking the concerns of patients and staff very seriously, hearing them at first hand and then reporting back progress to the House on dealing with the issue. At the moment, it feels as if every year we acknowledge the problem in the House, every winter there are statements on winter crisis and corridor care, and we never really seem to take any steps forward. The new clause aims to ensure that is no longer the case.
New clause 56 is intended to give patients a right to be admitted to accident and emergency
“within 12 hours from decision to admit”,
and would require the Secretary of State
“to introduce a scheme to achieve this.”
We have discussed the legal right to admit and the legal right of patients on a number of occasions. I just want to clarify our intention, because it always raises some questions. The NHS constitution enshrines legal rights for certain things: for example, the two-week wait for a cancer referral to a specialist and the right to receive elective care within, I think, 18 weeks, if so referred. The other targets in the NHS are pledges; there is an aspiration for the Secretary of State to meet them, but it is not a right of the patient that the Secretary of State meets them. We think that 12-hour waits on corridors in hospitals merit the same urgency as cancer referrals, because they lead to awful outcomes.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I agree with the broad thrust of the points made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire in highlighting the impact of corridor care on patients, on families and on those seeking to provide the care for those patients. I suspect that pretty much all of us, in our own lives or as constituency MPs, will have come across examples of that and the impact that it has on our constituents, or on our friends and family members, so it is a very important point.
Before I turn to new clauses 12 and 56, I will briefly address new clause 84, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It is a very moderate and reasonable proposal, in that it seeks simply for data to be made available and published on where 12-hour-plus waits in A&E have contributed to avoidable deaths. That should not be a challenge; I suspect that that data is already extant in some part of the system. She is proposing a very moderate measure, which would pull all that together in one place, and allow it to be focused on and looked at in the round, rather than in disparate little penny packets of data. That is a very reasonable proposition.
The only challenge that I see is, sadly, in proposing it for integrated care board areas. Were the ICBs still what the Conservatives had conceived them to be—a number of geographical areas mapping on to an upper-tier authority social care provider—that data would have been even more meaningful, because it would have been more granular. The risk with the mergers and acquisitions—for want of a better phrase—among ICBs to form ever-larger areas is that that granularity is increasingly diluted. I fear that the genuinely positive benefits of what my hon. Friend is proposing might be somewhat diluted by virtue of what the Government are doing.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
On the publication of data on avoidable deaths, new clause 84 states
“where waits of more than 12 hours in accident and emergency departments was a contributory factor.”
Does the right hon. Member consider it likely that there is any great accuracy in the assessment of whether a death was avoidable?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I suspect that he has seen this issue in his professional career. Often, when a death occurs in a clinical setting, multiple factors are contributory. I think that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham framed this as she has, as “a contributory factor”—not the sole factor or the individual most significant factor, but that it could reasonably be deemed by a clinician or by those collecting the data that the long wait contributed to the death, because had that patient been seen, for example, in two hours rather than 12 hours, better clinical outcomes might have been achievable.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however, that with many of these things—both clinicians and coroners grapple with this—it is often complex to determine the actual most significant contributory factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham may correct me, but I think that is why she framed new clause 84 as she did, to allow for that degree of a lack of total certainty in such contexts. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.
I can see what the hon. Member for North Shropshire is seeking to do in new clauses 12 and 56: not unreasonably, she seeks to cast light on the impact of corridor care on patients, families and those caring for people. My only challenge would be—I will enlarge on this in a little more detail—that a narrow focus on corridor care, while understandable, slightly loses the bigger picture. Corridor care is, for want of a better way of putting it, a subset, a consequence, of a much broader systemic challenge.
The Minister will probably know this as well; when I was first appointed to her job, one of the first conversations I had in the context of secondary care was about the importance of flow through our acute hospital systems, from a patient either presenting at A&E or arriving by blue light at A&E, to being treated, and the ability of A&E to function through those patients being seen, treated, and discharged or put into a hospital bed to become an in-patient. The ability to achieve the latter is dependent on the ability to discharge.
Helen Morgan
New clause 56 speaks about the importance of creating capacity across the system, including social care, and about having regard to the outcome of Baroness Casey’s commission on social care to deal with the issue of capacity and flow through the hospital. We have discussed at length in Committee other amendments that would deal with the front door, in terms of GP access and trying to ensure that people are treated at first in the community, rather than ending up in A&E as a last resort. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would just acknowledge those points.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady pre-empts me— I am afraid I have rather a few more remarks to come to. I planned to through the subsections and paragraphs of her new clauses to acknowledge exactly that. For example, in proposed new clause 56(4), she highlights capacity, and in proposed new subsection (5) she mentions Baroness Casey’s independent commission and the need to pay heed to it. All that is important, but my slight fear relates to the drafting. While the new clauses note such factors, they do not necessarily reflect the overall interdependency of all parts of the system. I believe that what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve is perfectly reasonable, but I am not convinced by how the new clauses are drafted.
The hon. Lady was right to highlight in her remarks the importance of timely discharge from hospital as a key element of whether we can achieve that flow into hospital beds and have hospital bed capacity to allow an A&E department or emergency department to function. I looked at this issue four years ago, so the situation may well be very different today, but post the pandemic I inherited about 13,000 acute beds across the system occupied by patients who were medically fit for discharge, but whose discharge had been delayed due to a variety of factors. Some were because hospital pharmacies were not open through the night to provide the drugs when patients were signed off to go home; some were because of the unavailability of patient transport; some were because all the necessary clinicians were not present to sign in the appropriate order.
The single biggest factor, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire has alluded to, was the availability of step-down or social care provision, so that patients could safely go home or to another NHS or care facility and be looked after. We managed to get the delayed discharge total down from 13,000 at a given time to about 10,000—possibly just a bit under. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the current total is for beds occupied by those medically fit for discharge at a given time.
I see where the hon. Member for North Shropshire is coming from with her suggestion of a tribunal comprised of a mixture of people to interrogate the figures and interrogate the Secretary of State. I can see that she is seeking to make the experiences of those undergoing corridor care and their families real to Ministers, who will be accountable. I gently say that I suspect that the Minister and her boss, the Secretary of State, are only too aware of the consequences of corridor care. Such patient experiences very much weigh on them as Ministers, as they did on me and others, day in, day out. We were always very cognisant of them.
I can see the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s intention with new clause 12(4), where she suggests that Healthwatch should be involved in helping put such a tribunal together. I fear that the Government’s direction of travel may have rendered subsection (4) redundant, but I do not disagree with the intention, because I think she and I both share a view on the importance of healthwatch groups and the value that they bring locally to our healthcare system.
While I can see the point about waiting 12 hours from arriving at the hospital to being taken into A&E, but the new clause does not reflect how the system might seek to manage that. It does not explicitly reference ambulance handover times and waiting times. A challenge we have seen in the past is that, in a desire to avoid hospital corridor care, some trusts have not admitted patients from ambulances until they feel that they could manage them in the hospital.
Arguably, that is less safe than corridor care, for two reasons: first, because the ambulance is not able to offload and be available in the community again and, secondly, because although corridor care has negative consequences, none the less in a hospital corridor there is a consultant or clinician very nearby, should a medical crisis occur. That is better than someone being in an ambulance in the car park—or waiting at home, having called an ambulance that is not coming, and not having their condition assessed because the ambulance is still holding a patient that a trust does not want to admit, in order to avoid congestion and corridor care.
I worry that, although the new clause has the best of intentions, the way the system might react and the impact on ambulance handovers and the ability of ambulances to pick up patients might have been overlooked. That is not a reason not to try to solve the problem of corridor care, but we must acknowledge the ambulance part of the challenge in A&E and emergency care, and encourage and incentivise the system to work as a whole to solve the problem, rather than focusing purely on the ED. In saying that, I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has referenced social care, step-down beds and community care, which are all hugely important, and I listened to her speech with interest, as I always do her contributions.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on the latest daily figure for how many patients who are medically fit for discharge are still in an acute hospital bed. Perhaps, when the hon. Member for North Shropshire winds up on this group, she might be able to address the ambulance point—she addressed the social care point, but I would be grateful for her thoughts on ambulances.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to support a lot of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston said. Across the Committee, I think we all agree that corridor care and care in other inappropriate settings should have no place in the NHS. No patient should be assessed, treated or left waiting in a corridor, in a cupboard or anywhere else because there is nowhere for them to go.
We owe it to patients and our constituents to be honest about the scale of the problem and be serious about ending it. That starts with measuring it properly, because if we do not collect the data, publish the evidence and track progress, inappropriate care settings risk becoming normalised. In May, nearly 3,000 patients were in corridor care, which was a 2.5% increase from the same time last year. In the same month, 50,000 patients waited in A&E for more than 12 hours, which was a 17% increase from the same period last year.
The Government continually miss their target on the 12-hour wait. I am not making a political point; this is a serious problem, and successive Governments are still struggling to ensure that it does not happen. We all know from our casework and our inboxes, and some of us know through personal experience or from loved ones, that too many patients are experiencing unacceptably long waits in A&E after a decision has been taken to admit them. That is bad for patients, bad for staff and bad for the wider functioning of our hospitals.
New clause 56 in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire acknowledges that the causes of delays extend far beyond the emergency department itself, and I will touch on that in a moment. Challenges in social care, discharge processes, step-down provision and workforce capacity all contribute to bottlenecks that leave patients waiting longer than they should. Although there might be legitimate questions about the precise mechanisms proposed in the new clause, I do not think there is any disagreement among the Committee about the principle that patients deserve timely access to a hospital bed and that excessive admission delays should not be accepted as the norm.
That is why I fully support new clause 84 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Publishing data on avoidable deaths associated with waits of more than 12 hours would help to ensure that we, as a Parliament and as policymakers, remain focused on outcomes for patients, not just performance indicators. I am particularly persuaded by the proposal to publish that information at ICB level, notwithstanding the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, which I agree with entirely. It would at least give some allowance for those making decisions to look at the local variation and ensure that it is identified, however less local that will become.
Hopefully, good practice will be able to be shared between different areas, and the areas that face the greatest challenges will be able to receive both appropriate scrutiny and appropriate support. Of course, collecting and publishing data will not by itself reduce waiting times, but we cannot effectively tackle a problem that we do not properly measure. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant in these cases, and greater transparency can be a powerful driver of improvement.
At the heart, new clause 84 recognises the simple truth that every statistic represents a person, a family and a life, and if avoidable deaths are occurring as a consequence of prolonged A&E waits, we should have the courage to measure them, publish them and learn from them. That is why I support the new clause. As has been touched on in other speeches, and as I mentioned earlier, the issue of corridor care does not sit in isolation. In fact, it is not a cause of the problem; it is the symptom of many other problems within our health and social care network.
Dr Prinsley
When I was a young doctor—a registrar—in the 1980s, we had 300,000 beds in our health service. By the time I was a senior doctor in the 2020s, we had 140,00 beds—less than half the number of beds we had before. When I was a young doctor, corridor care did not exist; I had never heard the term. The hospitals were simply big enough. Does the hon. Member agree that the many years of decline in the total number of beds in our hospitals is an extremely important factor in the fact that we do not have enough beds for the patients sitting in the A&E departments?
Gregory Stafford
I respect immensely the hon. Gentleman’s experience. He described being a young doctor, but he is still a very young doctor/politician now. Of course, capacity is an essential part of this. He is a clinician, so I will not lecture him on this, but my suggestion would be that it is not about just capacity within hospitals. The Government’s shift is to try to get people out of hospitals and into community settings as much as possible, so it is capacity within the whole system that needs to be looked at. Going back and putting loads more beds into hospitals would not somehow solve this problem or create a healthcare system that is aligned with what the Government want, which is hopefully treating more people at home. On his general point, I accept that the more capacity there in the system as a whole, the more likely we are to solve some of the problem.
That neatly moves me on to my next point, which is about the whole-system approach to this. As hon. Members have mentioned, we have a potential problem with ambulances waiting in carparks, and unfortunately, trusts gamify the system when targets are put in place—they do not admit people through the door because it will hit their targets. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston mentioned, that has a knock-on effect for the people sitting in the ambulances and those who are potentially not receiving an ambulance because the capacity is not there. Likewise, at the other end of the system—though I suppose it is both ends of the system—social care needs to improve significantly. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have pushed another social care review that is probably not going to report until 2028, which is kicking the can down the road. I think it is essential that we get social care correct.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Some excellent points have been made about corridor care; I know that all of us want to see that improved. It is a serious issue for all of our residents, and the Minister and others will be working hard to do all they can to address it. May I gently point out the irony of colleagues on the official Opposition side raising all these issues now as if they have had a Damascene conversion, when they had 14 years to try and address them? I remember raising these issues in the House when my party was in Opposition. We are not undermining in any way the concerns about corridor care, because we all care deeply about it. [Interruption.]
Gregory Stafford
I am grateful to the hon. Member; she makes an interesting point. She talks about irony, and I respond in the same manner as that which she intervened on me with a gentle response, which is to ask why, if everything was going so swimmingly well, she and the rest of her colleagues got rid of the Prime Minister?
Joe Robertson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity not to chunter from a sedentary position and to remark that this tedious rhetoric about the last 14 years—when all the public want to do is hear about plans for the future and how they will work—is the reason why we are in the state that we are. Will my hon. Friend continue and address the points that the public want, which he had already begun to do?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public do not want to hear about the last 14 years or the rhetoric around them.
Gregory Stafford
I will give way to the hon. Lady after I finish my sentence, if I may. The public want to know what the solutions are. I think we could look back through history at successive Governments since prehistory and say, “They got some things right, and they got some things wrong.” What the public want to know now is what the current Government will do.
On the point about social care, I was not a member of the last Government, but I stood on an election manifesto commitment, as the Labour party certainly did and I think most political parties did, that essentially said that the Dilnot review had decided how we were going to deal with social care, and we were going to get on with it. It strikes me as very strange that the last Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), decided to have another review; he has said himself in interviews since he resigned that it looks like the stalling on social care means that we will not get any movement on it before another general election. I do not think the public should put up with that.
Karin Smyth
As the hon. Member was not here at the time, perhaps it eludes his memory, I remind him that it was a coalition Government agreement to move forward with Dilnot, which had cross-party support. As soon as the coalition finished in 2015 and the Conservative party had dumped their friends in the Liberal Democrats, almost immediately after that election, it also dumped all pretence around the Care Act 2014 provisions at the time. We are where we are. I just wanted to help his memory.
The Chair
Order. I think we are moving a little out of scope here. Could we bring it back to the contents of the Bill?
Gregory Stafford
I will do that. As I have already said, no party has necessarily covered itself in glory with this issue. It might have taken us four years to dump it; it took the Chancellor of the Exchequer less than two weeks.
Liz Twist
I want to touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East in his intervention. We absolutely agree that the public are concerned with what we do for the future. We are talking about a specific Bill here. There is a huge concentration of effort in getting those figures down. We absolutely agree that people want to look to the future and whether this is the way to do it.
Gregory Stafford
I look forward to the new Prime Minister coming in and, I hope, providing a position where the hon. Member is able to achieve some of that. [Interruption.] I note for Hansard that that received acclamation across the Committee Room.
Getting back to the Bill, as you have suggested I do, Dr Huq—I take your suggestions very seriously—the social care element is extraordinarily important. It is important to ensure that people do not enter the secondary care system if at all possible, especially through attending A&E. When I worked on the Getting It Right First Time programme, our accident and emergency reports put forward some interesting methods that could potentially help with that. Some of that has been implemented and some has not, but I recommend all hon. Members look at that report, because it contains a number of interesting proposals.
This is not only about stopping people entering the system, but about ensuring that people come out of the system in a timely manner, freeing up the capacity we have just talked about. In my constituency, Haslemere hospital had 16 step-down inpatient rehabilitation beds. Unfortunately, last year, that service was “temporarily paused”—that is how it was described, but it has been over a year now, so it has essentially stopped. That service is not happening in my constituency, which is down to the fact that it was a GP-run service and the trust could no longer get a GP who was willing to run that service.
Haslemere hospital and the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust that runs the hospital have some really fantastic ideas, very much in keeping with the Government’s push towards neighbourhood health, and I fully support those proposals, but it is a shame that we have had 16 beds sitting empty for more than a year, which could have been used for rehabilitation. We as a body politic should be looking at how we can improve and expand our step-down/step-up capacity, so that people do not have to go into acute settings.
I turn briefly to the specifics of new clause 12. I am concerned about subsections (3) and (4), which talk about a tribunal system. I do not quite understand how that would work. The way it is set out almost gives it an adversarial, inquiry-type, case-by-case element. It would include patients, bereaved or affected families, and frontline NHS staff. I can see how that kind of body might work if one was investigating a failure around a single patient or at a single trust, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member for North Shropshire could expand on how she sees the national report coming forward and then a group of people being selected to interrogate it. It is also not clear what would be the consequences of the interrogation, or otherwise, once it has happened.
Dr Johnson
New clauses 12, 56 and 84 are about care in our accident and emergency departments and care in corridors. I do not want to rerun the debate on corridor care that we had in the Chamber last night, but corridor care does not provide safety, privacy and dignity, and it is unpleasant for the patient, their family and staff. If someone is in a corridor, how can they get changed, or use a commode or a bed pan? How can they be examined privately, and give information about their medical history without being overheard by a person walking down the corridor or the person in the bed next to them? Corridor care also has safety issues; for example, a patient may not be proximal to as much equipment, such as oxygen supplies and other equipment that might be required in the event of a collapse or arrest. It is not right and should not be the case that patients are cared for in corridors.
The hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett talked about the history, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East that the current situation and the future are what is important. A&E services are under pressure. Attendances went up by 2.5% last year, but in March 2025, 46,766 people waited more than 12 hours in A&E following a decision to admit before being moved to a more appropriate bed. That figure is up 8.8% on the previous year. The Government’s urgent and emergency care plan sought to improve that poor performance, but things have got worse. The latest NHS figures, from May 2026, show that more than 50,000 patients waited more than 12 hours following a decision to admit—17.1% higher than the May 2025 figure. The narrative that there was a problem but now things are getting better is not necessarily accurate. We keep being told that waiting lists are coming down, but they are higher than they were a month ago, and for those waiting for an admission or procedure, they are than they were a month ago and higher than they were a year ago.
Dr Prinsley
I wonder whether the hon. Member remembers that in 2010, when I believe there was an election—[Interruption.] Yes. The point I wish to make is that at the end of the previous Conservative Government, before Labour came back into office, waiting lists had reached an absolute record. Under the previous Labour Administration, waiting lists came down to almost nothing, but after 2010 they crept up and up, and by the time of the election in 2024 they had reached a record. I think she will recognise that Labour Governments have had strong records of reducing waiting lists, which is what we are doing now. We are only getting started, but it would be good to have some words of encouragement.
Dr Johnson
I am always happy to encourage the hon. Gentleman; I hope that in the impending reshuffle, he is given the opportunity to put his experience into practice. I have one word for him: pandemic. The pandemic made a huge difference to the numbers on waiting lists, and there is no current pandemic. It is possible to make arguments about whether the Government at the time—I was not in the Government at the time—were too harsh in their policies around elective care, whether patients would have come into hospitals for elective operations during covid or whether they would have preferred not to, and whether the waiting lists grew more than they may have done in other circumstances, but to try to say that the pandemic had no effect is going a stretch too far.
Karin Smyth
To correct the shadow Minister, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said that; he said the waiting lists have gone up. To be clear, in case her memory eludes her again, they were at 4 million before the pandemic and the Conservative party—her party, whose manifesto she stood on—did not meet a single target since before 2015. That is important for people to remember: 4 million people were on waiting lists before the pandemic started. The NHS went into crisis under the Conservatives’ leadership. Even if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East thinks it is tedious to remind them of their record, no member of the public thinks it is tedious; they will never be forgiven for that record.
Dr Johnson
I think what members of the public want is the people who are in government now to do something to improve their lives. I am in danger of repeating myself, which could present an extra concern when so many people are questioning my memory, but there has been a 2.5% increase in the number of A&E attendances, but a 17.1% increase in the number of people waiting more than 12 hours after a decision to admit. That suggests that the Government are not going in the right direction. The public may enjoy a history lesson from time to time, but what they really want to know is what is happening now to make their lives better. I am sure the Minister will give us the answer to that in her summing up, but at the moment the Government are not bringing down the long waits in A&E.
Let me return to the new clauses. Corridor care needs a whole-pathway approach. In last night’s debate we talked about the importance of preventing admissions—I know that is one of the Government’s shifts—in order to increase hospital capacity. The hon. Gentleman for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about capacity and the number of beds having reduced over a long period—another history lesson—but when my mum had me, a good few years ago, it was common for women to stay in hospital for quite a long time after having their child, and it was quite common for people to stay in bed for many days after having an operation. We now know that it is better for people to be up and about, and people leave hospital more quickly. That is a good thing. The reason for bed numbers coming down over successive Governments of different parties is clinical as well as managerial. I think that is worth saying.
Will the Minister answer a question that I asked in last night’s debate but, unless I missed it, she did not answer in her summing up? Does the NHS have more beds now than it did when Labour came to power in July 2024, or fewer? I believe the answer is fewer.
Edward Argar
Does my hon. Friend recognise the statistic that between 1997 and 2007, the then Government closed 32,000 hospital beds—more than double the number closed between 2010 and 2022? That is when the big reductions took place, and they failed to put in place an expansion of community beds to match that.
Dr Johnson
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, but I need to answer my right hon. Friend’s question first. My right hon. Friend has a much better memory than me—I was much younger then—so I am sure his statistics will be accurate.
Dr Prinsley
I think the principal reduction that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston described was a result of the change of practice in the way that psychiatry was managed. During that period, we closed the asylums—large hospitals on the outskirts of almost every town and city. That was the result of a change in clinical practice—the idea that patients should be managed within the community. However, we continued to close acute beds, and it is the acute beds in the district general hospitals that are the problem we are talking about.
Dr Johnson
I think we are going back full circle to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, when he suggested that the problem was that beds had historically been closed. Now he is making the point that there were clinical reasons why that happened, not just managerial reasons. I think that is an important thing to note.
Moving on from capacity, we also need to look at the workforce. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how soon “imminent” is in terms of the workforce plan. There was also a point picked up earlier—I cannot remember who picked it up; it might have been the hon. Member for North Shropshire—about discharge from hospital and pharmacies. One of the challenges that I find as a clinician is that hospital pharmacies often close relatively early, which means that it is more difficult to discharge patients in the evening. That is something for the Minister to look at. There is also, of course, the importance of social care, and ensuring the provision of social care beds both to prevent admission and to get people out of hospital as quickly as is safely possible.
That is the background to this group of new clauses. New clause 12, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, would require a report on corridor care to be produced six months after the passage of the Act, and then every 12 months, containing data at the hospital, trust and ICB level on the number of individuals receiving care in an inappropriate place. That seems sensible data to collect, but I believe the Government may already to be collecting it; the Minister may be able to enlighten us on that. The report would also set out the steps taken in that year to reduce the number of patients in inappropriate care spaces, the plans for the coming year to reduce that number further—as I said, it is going up at the moment—and the funding allocated to that. There is some sense to that. Then the Secretary of State would have to give evidence in front of a panel, called the “corridor care tribunal”, which would include patients, affected families and impacted NHS staff, who would be selected by Healthwatch and NHS royal colleges.
I have just a couple of points on that. One is that Healthwatch will be abolished by the Bill, which would make that challenging—perhaps the new clause would need to be redrafted. Also, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and an NHS consultant paediatrician and, as far as I am aware, the royal colleges are independent of the national health service. They are separate; they are connected in terms of training, standards and advice, but I believe that they are organisationally independent. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have got that wrong.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire has considered whether the Health and Social Care Committee, which is elected and politically balanced, might be the right body to scrutinise those Government plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, who is a member of the Select Committee, is not here now, but—
Dr Johnson
Sorry; I forgot. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon will tell me if I am wrong, but that is an elected Select Committee, with political balance, that is set up specifically to scrutinise the work of the Department of Health and Social Care. If the Department is working to try to reduce the number of patients receiving corridor care, and to measure it, it seems to me that the right organisation to scrutinise that work is already in place: the Health and Social Care Committee. I therefore think this measure would be a duplication. However, I understand the need to get patient voice into the picture; that is why it is unfortunate that the Government are choosing to abolish Healthwatch, which I think would do that very effectively.
New clause 56, also in the name of the Member for North Shropshire, talks about A&E waiting times. I will start by saying that we all want A&E waiting times to be shorter—we all want people to be seen quickly and do not want patients to suffer—so the intent behind this proposal, to get people seen more quickly, is obviously a good one.
However, the new clause would require, within six months, provision to be made requiring
“every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.”
I have a question about the wording of that, because my understanding is that someone is admitted to A&E when the decision is made to admit them to A&E and they become an A&E patient. I wonder whether the hon. Lady intends it to mean admission to an appropriate bed, whether in the trust or elsewhere. Usually, people waiting in corridors or in A&E are waiting for admission to the ward, rather than for someone to make a decision.
New clause 56 would also require the Secretary of State to establish and implement an A&E scheme to help trusts to achieve that requirement, and provides that the scheme must consider creating safety nets, step-down beds and a dedicated workforce plan for A&E—it will be nice to see the workforce plan, which the Government are supposed to have written—and mandating the presence of a “qualified clinician” in the waiting room. Will the hon. Member for North Shropshire tell the Committee what she means by a qualified clinician? Does she mean a consultant, a senior nurse or a healthcare assistant? What sort of qualifications does she think that they must have? The Secretary of State must also have regard to Baroness Casey’s report, but that is not due to be written in time for the new clause, which creates a little tension. However, again, I agree with the principle that social care is important in this context.
In summary, the principle of new clause 56 is good and important, but I think that there are some issues with the drafting of it. New clause 84 in my name, which has been well covered by my colleagues, would just require the publication of data. In her speech earlier, the hon. Member for North Shropshire gave a figure of 15,000, but I looked back at Hansard and last night she said that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine reported that long waits caused 15,860 deaths. That figure tells us what a serious problem this is. Being able to measure that figure and, I hope, see it falling would be a helpful step.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 9th July 2026
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 July 2026 - (9 Jul 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 56—Accident and Emergency: waiting times—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision relating to Accident and Emergency Department admission.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) must include the requirement for every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made.
(3) The Secretary of State must establish and implement an Accident and Emergency Scheme (‘the Scheme’) to support NHS hospital trusts to achieve the requirement set out in subsection (2).
(4) The Scheme must consider—
(a) creating safety-net social care beds,
(b) increasing step-down care,
(c) publishing a dedicated accident and emergency care workforce plan, and
(d) mandating a qualified clinician is present in every Accident and Emergency waiting room.
(5) The Secretary of State must have due regard to the final report of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in establishing the scheme.”
This new clause gives patients a legal right to be admitted into A&E within 12 hours from decision to admit and requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to achieve this.
New clause 84—Publication of data on avoidable deaths—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish every quarter the number of avoidable deaths where waits of more than 12 hours in accident and emergency departments was a contributory factor.
(2) The Secretary of State must make the data under subsection (1) available by integrated care board area.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish data on avoidable deaths caused by waits over 12 hours in A&E departments.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak first to new clause 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I reconfirm the Government’s focus on reducing long waits by improving patient flow, increasing productivity and delivering better emergency care for patients. Last night in the Chamber, we had a good discussion about corridor care in particular; all our comments are on the record, so I will not delay the Committee by repeating everything, but I will take some time to answer the questions raised in Committee this morning.
We are clear that the Government will end corridor care in this Parliament. It is completely unacceptable. Longer waits for emergency care can be associated with poorer patient outcomes. That is why, through the urgent and emergency care plan in 2025-26, we are investing more than £450 million to expand urgent and emergency care capacity, including new same-day emergency care services, urgent treatment centres, additional mental health crisis provision and nearly 1,000 replacement ambulances. Alongside that, we are implementing new clinical standards and improving patient flow across hospitals, all to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I was pleased to take part in the debate in the Chamber yesterday. I raised some examples from my local hospital, which is expanding its same-day emergency care because of the funding that we received from the Labour Government. We also have a safe haven for mental health patients who do not need to go into accident and emergency. Lots of work is happening in my local hospital area, which will make a big improvement to corridor care and wider emergency care pressures. Does the Minister agree that that is what we need to do, and that the Labour Government are doing it?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner. His health community has a lot of problems, as he well knows, but he is always there first, challenging me about the challenges in his healthcare system. He ensures that the people of Ashford are duly represented. He is absolutely right that what will make a difference to patients is improvement on the ground. I do not minimise how far there is to go, but I think patients are already starting to feel that improvement.
In the debate last night, we heard about some great work that is happening. We heard from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford; from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), who talked about the challenged system and the challenged hospital in Blackburn, and the real improvements there; from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine); and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who talked about progress in West Suffolk. That is really encouraging to see.
Earlier in the debate, statistics in the public domain were raised by, I think, the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others on deaths due to long waits and so on. That is a completely unacceptable situation, but I want to put it on the record that those statistics are not Government statistics. We had a bit of a debate about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket highlighted how one can attribute cause of death to certain provisions. It is a really important measure. We do not want anyone waiting, full stop, but the statistics are not verified as Government statistics. I want to be clear about that.
On new clause 84, I assure the Committee that trusts are already held to account on the number of patients waiting 12 hours from arrival in A&E to admission, discharge or transfer. The medium-term planning framework published in October 2025 sets out the expectation that trusts will reduce the percentage of patients waiting 12 hours or more, year on year until 2028-29, as part of our overall ambitions to return to meeting the NHS constitutional standards.
The Government already produce comprehensive data on urgent emergency care performance, including on waiting times and on 12-hour waits. Those data provide transparency, support the oversight of the NHS’s performance and enable independent analysis of patient outcomes. We have been very keen to ensure that those statistics are published.
Another issue raised this morning was bed numbers. We had a bit of a historical throwback to the 1990s; I will not detain the Committee further by doing that again. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket talked about changes in clinical practice, mental health beds and so on. I could talk for many hours about that. As a junior manager coming into the health services, one of my first tasks was to define what a bed is. That is not an easy thing to do. Most people think they know what a bed is but, as we discussed earlier, a trolley without wheels could be a bed. Counting beds and defining what they are and what they are used for is a complicated business in the health service. I know you will tell me not to deviate from the new clause, Ms Lewell, but this is important. Practice changes, and it is important that we make the most effective and efficient use of NHS resources. That means making changes to bed numbers, where they are and how we count them.
In June 2026, an average of 13,618 adult patients in acute hospitals per day were waiting for delayed discharge. We have improved data collection, so we have a better sense of the scale of the problem and, crucially, where it is; it is different in different places. We are seeking to improve that data. I gently remind the Committee that the NHS England website produces an awful lot of really good data so that Members of Parliament and our constituents are able to keep track. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made clear, we need to keep up with best clinical practice, as well as the best use of resources. We are very happy to share that information and keep it transparent.
New clauses 12 and 56 were tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who is right to raise the unacceptable waits for care that some patients experience in A&E after the decision has been made to admit them. That includes patients being treated and cared for in corridors at times because of hospitals’ lack of capacity to admit them. As we discussed last night, the Government are clear that corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care and must not be normalised. We inherited an NHS under severe pressure with long waits and increasing numbers of patients receiving care in non-designated clinical areas. It is unacceptable, but I am afraid it was allowed to happen under the Conservatives. We are committed to eradicating corridor care, and we have a plan to do so.
To improve transparency, we have already established a clear national definition of corridor care. Again, the Conservatives could have done so in the past 14 years but chose not to. We have introduced daily reporting arrangements and strengthened the data quality processes. We are working hand in hand with stakeholders, including the royal college. In addition, we have published national guidance to support safe care where such situations cannot be avoided.
We are working hard to tackle the causes of corridor care; we are not just reporting on the consequences. That is why we want to improve patient flow. We have had good discussions about patient flow, both pre-admission and post-discharge, involving social care and primary and community care to support people who need care homes. We do not want people—particularly frail, elderly people—turning up at hospitals if it is better for them clinically to be treated where they are. We are improving patient flow, strengthening the discharge arrangement and investing £215.5 million in new and expanded urgent care services across England. We are also providing targeted support to the trusts facing the greatest challenges in relation to corridor care so that improvements can be delivered where they are needed most.
I gently remind the hon. Member for North Shropshire—and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, as a clinician, will be clear on this information about admissions—that when a patient presents at A&E, a clinician decides whether to admit them to the hospital, provide treatment, transfer their care to another location or discharge them. Under the current reporting rules, the clock starts running on a patient’s arrival in A&E and stops when one of those actions is taken. As a result, no decision is made to admit to A&E itself. Instead, if someone requires admission, it should be to somewhere elsewhere in the hospital.
Although I fully recognise the concerns that underpin these new clauses, I do not believe that further statutory requirements are the right approach. In the debate last night, we outlined in full the Government’s absolute commitment to addressing the issues and improving the situation for all our constituents. I hope that I have suitably reassured hon. Members that these new clauses are not required, and that they will not press them.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I will speak briefly to new clauses 12 and 56, about which we had quite a long debate this morning. Let me respond to a couple of questions. The shadow Minister asked about the role of Healthwatch in selecting the panel that would interrogate the Secretary of State, as we envisage in new clause 12, given that Healthwatch will be abolished by the Bill. She also asked about new clause 56, which would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to Baroness Casey’s final report. The shadow Minister said that those things are essentially inconsistent, but, considered as a suite of amendments, the provisions we have tabled are consistent. We oppose the abolition of Healthwatch; had that been successful, Healthwatch would still be there. We have also tabled new clause 60, which we will get to later and which would require Baroness Casey’s commission to report much more quickly. That is why that apparent inconsistency exists; I hope I have sorted that out for the shadow Minister.
The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, a former Minister, talked about capacity in the system as a whole and its impact on corridor care. His concern was that if we focus on corridor care, we will end up with more people being treated in ambulances, have longer ambulance handover times and very long ambulance wait times. He will know, having been the responding Minister to my first Adjournment debate, that ambulance wait times have been a significant problem where I live. I am pleased to say that they are becoming less of a problem, because the new management of the hospital have focused relentlessly on the A&E department and on ensuring that ambulance patients can be taken into it very quickly, or certainly much more quickly than they used to be. I recognise his concern, but I think it is a manageable one.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Although it is true that hospital management could concentrate on dealing with the waits in A&E, surely it needs to concentrate on the flow through the entire hospital. Every department and everybody involved in the hospital has to be thinking all the time about the flow through the entire hospital. That involves having a pharmacy that is open at night and ensuring that social workers are there when they need to be—it involves all manner of things. Simply concentrating on a particular statistic in an A&E department will not actually deal with the problem.
Helen Morgan
I think our new clause addresses that point. As I mentioned, my own hospital trust, Shrewsbury and Telford, has improved ambulance wait times simply by improving the flow through the hospital and addressing some of the issues. I recognise that our new clause does not deal with pharmacy availability at weekends and overnight, which I know is a critical issue in many hospitals; on Report, we will certainly tidy it up to ensure that it does, but I take the hon. Member’s point.
My new clause would address the system-wide capacity issue that the hon. Member highlighted so carefully, both in last night’s debate and here today. We need more capacity across the whole system. Otherwise, we are just trying to push a lump in the carpet to a different place, but there will always be a lump somewhere. The new clause seeks to provide 6,000 more beds across the whole system, to allow flow through the system and to ensure that waits do not back up in the ambulance service, on corridors in A&E or outside wards, as they do currently.
Critically, we should address the point about NHS pledges and rights. The constitution is broadly agnostic about the time people wait on corridors, but is not agnostic about the time it will take for them to get cancer treatment. That is an inconsistency and we should sort it out, because I think our constituents consider the two things equally important.
I take the Minister’s point about new clause 12. I will not push it to a vote, but although trusts are held to account on their A&E performance, the missing piece is that the Secretary of State is not. That is what new clause 12 seeks to address, and I hope that the Minister will consider that on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Healthy life expectancy target
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make regulations to set a statutory target for improving overall healthy life expectancy for the population of Great Britain, and
(b) publish a cross-governmental strategy, renewed every 24 months, to set out how the target set by regulations under subsection (1)(a) will be achieved.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1)(b) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) Upon publication of a strategy under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must make a statement before the House of Commons regarding progress made towards the target set by subsection (1)(a).”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years setting out how this target will be achieved.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 79—Public Health Committee—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Public Health Committee within six months of the passage of this Act to ensure a cross-governmental focus and consideration of the promotion of public health in government policy and address national health inequalities.
(2) The Public Health Committee under subsection (1) must—
(a) include at least one minister from each government Department in its membership,
(b) include all cabinet ministers in its membership,
(c) be chaired by the Prime Minister, and
(d) meet once in each annual quarter.
(3) Under subsection 2(b), cabinet members must attend at least three quarters of the Public Health Committee's meetings each year.
(4) Each government Department must publish an annual report on their department's consideration of public health in its policy and the extent of joint policy formulation with other government Departments.
(5) The Secretary of State must establish a Health Creation Unit to support the Public Health Committee.
(6) The Health Creation Unit must submit an annual report on its activities, decision-making and cross-government progress to the Liaison Committee.”
This new clause would establish a Public Health Committee and Health Creation Unit to promote public health and cross-government policy making.
New clause 80—Duty to promote public health—
“All Ministers of the Crown have a duty to consider health outcomes and the promotion and protection of public health when exercising their duties.”
This new clause will place a duty on all ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties.
Dr Chambers
New clause 14 is about healthy life expectancy. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years, setting out how the target would be achieved. New clause 79 would establish a public health committee and health creation unit to promote public health and cross-Government policymaking. New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. All three new clauses are closely related.
Over the last 100 years, life expectancy in the UK has been increasing for a variety of reasons, including vaccination, improved hygiene and medical advances, but worryingly, between 2022 and 2024, it decreased by 1.8 years for men and 2.5 years for women. That is the first time it has decreased in a while. There is an 11.1-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies, which is partly due to demographics and different socioeconomic situations. Socioeconomic disparity is causing a very significant difference in life expectancy.
We need wider whole-of-Government working to address the root cause of and contributing factors to ill health. DHSC, the NHS and social care deal with too much in silos, which is a problem across the whole of Government. There is too much siloed working. All Departments should be working with at least one eye on the health of the nation. That is what our new clauses seek to foster. A healthy life expectancy target would provide the basic metric for that aspiration, forcing wider thinking on prevention and ill health, rather than on waiting lists and hospital performance, as important as they are.
New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. That should aim to focus the minds of non-DHSC Government Departments that have a central role to play in the promotion of good health and longevity, whether that be housing standards or environmental regulations. We included health protection—areas such as clean water, for instance—as well as health promotion, which includes areas such as active travel.
New clause 79 would create a public health committee and a health creation unit to support its work, especially between Departments. This is an idea originally introduced under the coalition Government, designed to tackle obesity, alcohol abuse and other public health problems. Although we recognise that it was not perfect, given the Tories’ lack of engagement and spotty attendance, the desire to foster cross-Government thinking was definitely right.
Dr Prinsley
Would the hon. Member comment on what I consider to be almost the most successful and important Bill that our new Government have passed, on the effective abolition of cigarette smoking? As time goes by, that will save more lives than anything else we could possibly think of. I recognise that it was the initiative of the previous Government, but the fact that the new Government have managed to get it over the line is a massive achievement. That is very much underappreciated and certainly not spoken about anything like enough. We will never do anything as important as the abolition of cigarette smoking.
Dr Chambers
Yes, I sat on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for six weeks, going through the legislation line by line. One of the most interesting things about that Bill is not only that it will improve public health and life expectancy, but that it is probably one of the single most impactful pieces of legislation in terms of improving inequality and especially socioeconomic health outcomes. So many of the disparities in life expectancy between wealthy people and those living in relative poverty are due to levels of smoking—it is not just smoking, but that is a significant factor. It is good of the hon. Gentleman to highlight that.
During the coalition, the Tories recognised that the approach I described would send a powerful message that public health is the responsibility of all Government Departments. When it was scrapped, the then shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), said that we could tackle Britain’s looming obesity crisis only if all Government Departments pulled together. We completely agree with that statement.
New clause 79 tries to address some of the issues that occurred back then, including by placing requirements on ministerial attendance and giving the Liaison Committee oversight to drive accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that greater cross-Government working is needed. What are the Department’s plans to support that? If we want to tackle the various public health crises facing our country, we cannot do so without proper cross-Government working.
In my professional life, I was made an honorary lecturer at Bristol University veterinary school in the area of One Health, recognising that animal health, human health and environmental health are completely interlinked. It is difficult to improve one without looking at the factors that improve the others, and we need that kind of approach throughout all Government Departments.
Sojan Joseph
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I strongly believe that public health is very important to our health system because it focuses on prevention, so that people do not end up in A&E or in hospital beds. Unfortunately, over the last 10 or 15 years we have seen the opposite. If we are serious about improving the nation’s health, prevention must sit at the heart of every decision we make.
Public health professionals bring a vital perspective—one that looks beyond treating illness to understanding and tackling its root causes. They consider the wider determinants of health, from housing and education to inequality and the environment, and they help us design services that keep people well, rather than responding only when they become unwell. We need to identify our priorities, ensure resources are allocated appropriately and develop a long-term strategy.
New clause 79 proposes to create a new committee. As somebody who worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that there is no shortage of committees, senior leaders, management or meetings in our healthcare system. In fact, there are too many. What is missing are people to work on the frontline; that is what we saw over the 14 years under the Conservatives—and the Lib Dems were part of that.
One reason why I became active in politics was that I saw the frontline struggling. I worked as a nurse on the frontline in mental health services, and what we saw was money being diverted to create more senior leadership, more groups, more meetings and more management, while we were missing the people who actually did the work on the frontline. The new clause asks us to create a new committee, but we have enough committees and managers. In fact, through the Bill, we are trying to modernise the system by getting rid of some of those managers—that is the most important thing I can identify in the Bill. However, lots of the new clauses I have seen today and in the last Committee sitting have proposed creating more committees and directors. We are missing a point here. The Committee has an opportunity to reform our health system. If Members speak to a nurse or doctor who works in a hospital in our system, they will say, “We need more nurses, healthcare assistants and doctors, not more managers or directors.”
Not only in this new clause, but in many of the new clauses we are talking about, we need to think about embedding the public health voice within integrated care boards. Stronger integrated care boards will enable us to act early, reduce health inequalities and deliver care closer to home.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making powerful comments. I was struck by his argument that we need to focus more on what we do in communities. In Croydon East, a community diagnostic centre has opened, which is important because people in my community have a healthy life expectancy 10 years lower than that of people living a mile down the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be focusing on those real, tangible interventions at the heart of the communities that need help the most? That is what this Government are trying to do.
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree, and I can give an example. Last week, as part of the ICB’s new independent neighbourhood health centre, one of the GP practices in my constituency started to proactively go and see all elderly patients. It is not just giving those patients appointments when they fall ill; it is proactively visiting them. We need that kind of support so that we can prevent illnesses and prevent people from needing to go to hospital.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the physical aspects of health and extending life expectancy, we need to look at preventive measures for mental health? That will ensure that people live as good and full a life as they can, and receive the treatment they need. Does my hon. Friend see that as integral to any public health strategy?
Sojan Joseph
My hon. Friend makes a sensible comment. I work closely with her on mental health, and she is absolutely right. Some of the policies the Government have introduced, such as giving children early access to mental health provision, will be absolutely vital to prevent them from becoming unwell later on. The Government are also rolling out a new mental health strategy focused on prevention, which will be important. We need to be more lean and productive, rather than creating more managers and committees.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the King’s Fund report from late last year, which covers the years 2010 to 2025. It highlighted that the growth rate was only 5% for managers during those 15 years, but 94% for children’s nurses and 55% for doctors, and other groups had similar increases. We are seeing investment and workforce increases in the right areas.
It is right that we acknowledge, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman will, that the one group where we have not seen that same growth is community health visitors and community health workers. Alongside the massive investment and increase in doctors in the past 15 years, that group, and the role it plays, deserves focus from whichever party is in government.
Sojan Joseph
I agree. We need more band 5 nurses or healthcare assistants who can check blood pressure or blood sugar in patients’ homes. When someone rings their GP surgery, they should be able to meet a nurse or a healthcare worker to carry out some basic checks, rather than being delayed from seeing somebody until, a few weeks, months or a year later, they end up in A&E. That is where the focus should be.
I do not support the new clauses, and I urge the Committee to think about some of the other new clauses that propose creating more directors or committees. We need to focus on making our health system more productive.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 14, 79 and 80, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in England and then to produce a strategy every two years to meet that target. This is not the first time the House has heard about life expectancy targets; as I am sure you will remember, Ms Lewell, the previous Government’s 2022 levelling-up White Paper talked about narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy between the areas where it is highest and lowest, and aimed for healthy life expectancy to rise.
As the hon. Member for Winchester said, life expectancy has increased quite dramatically over the last century, but that is largely due to improvements in child mortality. That is a good thing, but it is worth looking at how healthy life expectancy is calculated. The Sullivan method starts by looking at mortality rates over a specific timeframe for a specific population, and then takes data from a cross-sectional study where people are asked to rate their own health, multiplies them together and produces a figure for healthy life years. Therefore, the main element that separates healthy life expectancy from unhealthy life expectancy is survey responses; it is not a clinical metric. If somebody on a huge amount of medication and treatment feels healthy, they are healthy. If someone on very minor treatment feels unhealthy, they are unhealthy. It is a self-reported measure.
The Government’s website says that if mortality improves by 2%, healthy life expectancy increases a very small amount; if self-reported feeling healthy goes up 2%, there is a much bigger increase in healthy life expectancy. We want people not just to live longer but to live well, but it is a case of how we measure it and how we ensure that there are no perverse incentives. We should look at it over time in the same individuals. How do people feel when they get up in the winter, when it is cold, dark, raining or icy? They may feel less healthy than when the sun is shining, it is the weekend or England have won the world cup.
The Government’s own figures show that musculoskeletal health is particularly important. Musculoskeletal conditions are prevalent among 17.2% of the population, and people with them are three times more likely to have self-reported ill health. We have asked before if the Government will introduce a modern service framework on musculoskeletal disease, having scrapped our long-term conditions strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government have given more consideration to that and are now willing to do an MSF on musculoskeletal health.
New clause 79 would require the Government to create a committee across Government, including the Prime Minister, all Cabinet members and one Minister from each Department. The idea behind the new clause—that we need to work together—is important, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how feasible, practical and effective that would be.
Finally, new clause 80 concerns the duty to promote public health. Of course, it is the Minister’s duty to do his or her job, and part of that is promoting public health. What does the Minister think the practical effects of that new clause would be on bureaucracy in Departments?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording.
New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers—I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy committee. There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.
Dr Prinsley
Public health used to be clearly under the aegis of the national health service. Some years ago, public health officers became employees of the local authorities, and the thing became somewhat separated from the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must join public health more closely to the activities of the national health service? Public health was at the very foundations of the national health service. I do not know whether other Members have, like me, read A. J. Cronin’s famous book, “The Citadel”, which describes the health service’s origins; in fact, I understand it was the book that the original politicians had all read. It has a marvellous description of a typhus epidemic, caused by an infected drain running down the middle of a street in a little Welsh mining village. The doctors had been completely unable to get any of the authorities to deal with it, so one night—they were ex-military—they put a little dynamite in the drain and blew the whole thing up. That is well described in the book, and it just shows how public health was absolutely integrated into the foundational principles of the national health service.
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess—that is always a pleasure.
To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.
Dr Chambers
I pay tribute to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. It does good work in trying to eradicate rabies in countries with street dogs, as part of hearts-and-minds engagement. We can work public health into pretty much any Department.
Dave Robertson
I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.
Dr Chambers
Just to blow my own trumpet, my greatest academic achievement was getting correspondence published in Nature on the impact of conflict on antimicrobial resistance. It might interest Members to know that, in Ukraine, 80% of wounds have novel bacteria that are displaying multi-drug resistance, which has become a limiting factor in getting soldiers back on to the frontline. We are trying to reframe issues such as antimicrobial resistance as national security and defence issues, rather than purely public health issues.
Dave Robertson
I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard—[Interruption.] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter.
There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role.
New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I find myself unequal to the level of analysis and detail that the hon. Member for Lichfield brought to public health in the Ministry of Defence.
I will add just a few brief thoughts. The good intention of extending the life expectancy of the people in this country—although my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the good point that it is about living well, not just for a long time—is not always best served by creating committees, and additional duties, reports and responsibilities in legislation.
The hon. Member for Winchester argued—I paraphrase, but it is a matter of record—that he would like all Departments to have an eye on the health of the nation. That sounds sensible. There are other things that I would hope all Ministers have an eye on in everything they do, such as the wealth of the nation and inequality, but I would not advocate for embedding those things—I hope they would come with good governance, public duty and responsibility—in legislation as a duty, a committee, a set of meetings and a report. Indeed, it is things done with good intentions that lead to growing bureaucracy, which slows down decision making and requires more people to be employed to discharge those duties at a growing cost to the public purse. It is something that western democracies do all too well, and not always for the good. I would not want this well-intended set of new clauses to lead to growing bureaucracy with very little benefit. The benefit that the hon. Gentleman wants to see, which I agree with, can be best delivered in other ways.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. The Government are clearly committed to enabling people to live longer. It is one of the successes of recent years that, at the foundation of the health service, the average life expectancy was I think 60 or 62, while, now, it is in the early to mid-80s. That is a massive change in the last 80 years or so.
As well as improving the healthy life expectancy of the population, we are determined to address the stark inequalities that blight our nation’s health. We know that the most disadvantaged in society often face the biggest health challenges, and that the current model of care works least well for those who already experience disadvantage, who are also far more likely to have complex needs.
In fact, my own entry into working for the NHS, back in the 1990s, was on the back of the 1980 Black report, which some Members might remember well. The then Conservative Government sat on that for ages; it was such an awful reflection on the first 35 years of the health service, that health inequalities had not improved, that they sought not to publish it. That struck me as so shocking that it led me to want to pursue a life doing something about it.
I see that in my own constituency, where the legacy of the tobacco industry—which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned—has led to a very high prevalence of smoking-related disease. In some parts of my constituency, that is up to 34%.
Liz Twist
I would point to examples such as in the north-east of England, where the work on smoking has been incredibly effective and still continues, and makes that real shift and change. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is those practical examples that we need to see, and to support along the way?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that point about prevalence in the north-east. Often, the prevalence of these diseases is also to do with post-industrial work, which many people had to do without concern or knowledge about the effects on their health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East mentioned practical examples as well: the opening and building of things such as community diagnostic centres in places that are accessible and open to the public, and neighbourhood health. That is entirely the drive that we have: for services where people are, and where the greatest health need is, and not expecting people to travel.
In terms of smoking, one of the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government was of course the ban on indoor smoking. My mother was a barmaid for all her adult life; it is hard to imagine that people were just standing there at her place of work, blowing smoke at her while she was working. I tell my children, “Yes, we used to sit on aeroplanes with people smoking,” and that, unbelievably, some people smoked at the back of buses on the way back from school, and so on and so forth. It is really quite shocking.
The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which we have also talked about in this Committee, is also a real testament to the work of this House, but didn’t it take a long time, Ms Lewell? I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for pursuing that in the face of great adversity from his own party at the time. That was not, obviously, by the Members present, who all have a high concern about health, but perhaps by others on the Conservative Benches at the time, and then indeed in the Lords, who sought to thwart it—thwart is a strong word in this context; obviously, they made their points, but they sought to stop that Bill making progress at various stages.
Some of my colleagues were coming back at different times, saying that they were working on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and I said, “What, still? Really? Has it not come through yet?” That showed how hard it is, when something so well evidenced and so supported by public health experts, on something so detrimental to public health—particularly for people living in poorer communities, such as the one I represent in Bristol South—still takes such a time to get through.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is very, very aware of my views and opinions on the Tobacco and Vapes Act, particularly on vaping and stopping vaping among children. That Act, a bit like this Bill, left lots of opportunities for the Government to provide for regulations. Anyone who has been in a shop in the past few days will have seen vapes still behind the counter, still very visible, very colourful and in lots of different flavours and suchlike. Can the Minister update the Committee, and therefore the House, on when she expects the regulations provided for by the Tobacco and Vapes Act to come into force, so that we can actually apply the law, as opposed to just having it sat on the statute book?
Karin Smyth
Well, I thank the hon. Member for her support. As I said, I did not expect that people here present, who understand the impact of that work, were the ones who were thwarting that. I do not have off the top of my head exactly when the regulations under that Act will come forward, but I am sure we can furnish the hon. Member with details as soon as possible. We all want to see that happening—in particular, the work going on around high streets, such as prevention of fraud by shops for all sorts of things, not just vapes. Obviously, that is high on the agenda, as it is for some of my colleagues as well. Those places and people are blighting our high streets.
Dr Prinsley
I sit on the Home Affairs Committee, and we have lately been discussing the matter of serious organised crime, and vape shops in particular. It turns out that many of the vape shops are in fact not really shops; they are places for laundering money. Specifically, they launder money in relation to drug businesses and the drug trade, which is another huge public health matter that I am sure the Minister will agree needs to be dealt with. We were informed that about 10% of this country’s adult population are using illicit drugs, and that for the most part those are being delivered via the post office. Does the Minister agree that that is a massive public health issue that will also need to be urgently addressed?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise and that work on the Home Affairs Committee. Again, it shows the Committee the wide range of work that goes on. Of course, many hon. Members are campaigning and working hard. Those shops are blights on our communities, and as with most illicit drug dealing, they affect the most vulnerable in places where they can pick on the most vulnerable. They are in areas of high deprivation, and that is something we need to stop. I commend all the communities and community leaders that work so hard to stop that happening in their areas. We must address it.
Returning to new clause 14, while I fully recognise and share the ambition that sits behind the new clause, introducing a new statutory duty is not the right way to achieve it. A healthy life expectancy is a long-term outcome shaped by a wide range of factors across society and Government, many of which cannot be meaningfully addressed through a rigid statutory timetable. Requiring the Secretary of State to set a statutory target within six months, publish a refreshed cross-Government strategy every two years and make formal statements to Parliament risks creating a process-heavy framework that prioritises reporting over delivery.
What matters most is sustained practical action to improve prevention, tackle health inequalities, expand access to care and address those wider determinants of health. That is why the Government have already published our 10-year health plan to improve the nation’s health, of which healthy life expectancy is one measure. That is central to us in bringing forward the 10-year plan. Publishing a new strategy every two years would be duplicative and would not help to deliver the plan that we already have in place. Work is already underway, and I am sure the House will hold us to account for the progress we make, as it rightly should. I believe we share the same aim that the new clause seeks, but we differ on the best means to get there.
On new clause 79, I assure the Committee that the Government are already working across Departments to improve health and reduce inequalities, ensuring that action on health is embedded across Government. For example, through the warm homes plan and rented sector reform, we are supporting healthier homes and reducing health harms associated with poor housing. Through the “Keep Britain Working” review, we are addressing the links between work, health and wellbeing. Through the environment improvement plan, we are tackling the health harms of air pollution, and in lifting hundreds of children out of poverty, we will transform their health and life chances.
Those endeavours demonstrate that improving health outcomes is already embedded across Government activity and does not depend on the creation of a new statutory committee. While I have considerable sympathy with the aim of the new clause, and I am a strong supporter, as I hope I have assured the Committee, of supporting those wider determinants of health, I am not persuaded that placing detailed internal Government structures into primary legislation is either necessary or desirable. We heard well from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield about some of the unintended complications about the new clause.
As we have repeatedly said, in the Bill we are not seeking to be unduly prescriptive or create unnecessary bureaucracy that may risk slowing down delivery. Indeed, we are aiming to reduce that bureaucracy. Furthermore, the Government must retain the flexibility to organise in a way that best supports delivery as the context evolves. The Government already bring Departments together to advance shared goals and will continue to strengthen collaboration wherever it is needed.
On new clause 80, I am again not convinced that creating a new statutory duty on every Minister is either necessary or the most effective means of achieving the objective of the hon. Member for Winchester. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care already has a statutory duty to protect public health and powers to take the appropriate steps to improve the health of the people of England. We have already discussed clause 4, which reformulates the Secretary of State’s duty on health inequalities. Those provide a clear statutory framework for improving health and addressing inequalities.
Beyond that, the Government do not operate in departmental silos. Ministers consider the implications of decisions and work collectively in the public interest, including on health impacts where relevant, which is particularly important to this Government. The proof is in the action we have started to take across Government to improve health. Although I agree entirely that health should be considered across Government, imposing a broad new legal duty on every Minister would risk creating unnecessary bureaucracy without meaningfully improving outcomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield highlighted.
Creating new procedure and reporting requirements is not in the spirit of this Bill, which has flexibility and a focus on delivery at its heart. We also heard that from the shadow Minister. Our focus is and must remain on delivering improvements in health outcomes, supporting prevention and tackling the causes of ill health, rather than creating additional statutory red tape. The objective of new clause 80 can be achieved without placing a new statutory requirement on every Minister.
The shadow Minister asked me about plans for a modern service framework for MSK, and we currently do not have plans to develop one. The national quality board will assess all proposals for new MSFs against clear criteria, which we have highlighted before, ensuring that we prioritise the area where a framework will have the greatest impact for patients.
Dr Johnson
I understood that one of the Government’s greatest priorities was to reduce waiting lists, but one of the things that people are waiting for the most is musculoskeletal or orthopaedic treatment. Why is it not a priority for the Government?
Karin Smyth
There is a long priority list for MSFs that was left by the last Government for different reasons. There are lots of things will bring down MSK waiting lists, such as more diagnostic facilities. As the shadow Minister knows, 80% of people on the waiting list are waiting for diagnostics, which is why we are fast-tracking and pushing more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East said, community diagnostic centres in places such as Croydon East will get people through for the diagnostics they need. There are also some things that the shadow Minister’s party seems to continue to oppose, such as advice and guidance for GPs so that, if there are alternatives to deal with MSK, of which there is already a lot of evidence, they can refer people to a more appropriate or faster access route in the meantime. Those actions are being taken.
She is quite right that orthopaedics is a large part of the waiting list. However, diagnostics, access to faster treatment and using the independent sector where appropriate will particularly target orthopaedic waiting lists as part of our elective reform plan.
Dr Johnson
I am not opposed to the principle of GPs seeking advice or guidance; the issue is the compulsory nature of that and GPs not being able to refer.
Karin Smyth
The shadow Minister is tempting me to divert away from addressing the main point, but I will take her point on board. I am glad that the Conservatives do not oppose the principle of advice and guidance, because evidence suggests that it is a good route to patients having care closer to home and getting faster treatment. She knows this because it has been clarified, but if there is any doubt: there is no compulsion on GPs to do that.
The hon. Member for Winchester talked about his expertise and blowing his own trumpet with regard to antimicrobial resistance. He jests slightly about that expertise, but he raises a really important point about AMR that I am sure we will talk about more when we discuss new clause 32. He is absolutely right that it is an important public health issue that crosses many divides, and I look forward to discussing that later.
Dr Chambers
I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion. The hon. Member for Lichfield made the good point that a committee of 70 people may not be that efficient. He should come to the Lib Dem parliamentary party meetings, which are incredibly efficient. We have incredibly insightful discussions, which is what makes us such an effective force, so I would not knock a committee of 70 people.
I appreciate the Minister’s acknowledgment of the important of cross-party work for public health. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Impact of trade deals on the NHS
“(1) Any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
(2) Before laying regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment about how the trade negotiation will affect NHS frontline services and patients.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 76—Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing—
“(1) The Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before the House of Commons a copy of the Arrangement, and
(b) the Arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) Before tabling a motion under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects on the health service of implementation of the Arrangement.”
This new clause would require the Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be brought before the House for a vote.
Dr Chambers
New clause 15 would require that the Secretary of State lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require that the arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing be laid before the House to be voted on.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that, by 2036, the UK-US pharmaceuticals deal will have cost as much as £9 billion. That money could be transformative for the NHS. It could be put towards ending corridor care, as the Committee discussed earlier, or towards hiring thousands of ward staff, buying countless radiotherapy machines and starting to deliver high-quality care and help at home for the elderly and disabled.
To make matters worse, Trump’s ambassador hauled in the head of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—the expert independent body that considers value for money in the NHS—to rebuke him over his opposition to the deal. It is utterly outrageous that a British public servant has been dressed down by a foreign regime for putting the interests of British patients and the British taxpayer first. It is crazy that billions of pounds of NHS funding is being spent to placate Trump, at the expense of the patient wellbeing. We want to support the British life sciences sector. That should be a domestic matter for the UK Government to address holistically, through negotiations with the sector; it should not be dictated from Washington.
Hiking payments for medicine is the wrong approach for patients who badly need investment in frontline staff, hospitals and equipment. The lack of transparency over the full cost has already created great uncertainty in the sector, and it is astonishing that such a major decision will be made without the say of the British people via a vote in Parliament. The Government refused even to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal, which has raised suspicion and caused some to think that something is being hidden. Through the people who elected us, this House—not the White House—decides on matters of national importance. The Liberal Democrats have tabled these new clauses to allow the House to have a proper vote on the deal.
Dr Johnson
I will be relatively brief. New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require the arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be laid before the House to be voted on.
A key concern is costing. There have been various estimates of the additional cost of medicines. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said that he would not change or cut the NHS budget to pay for that increased cost. Will the Minister tell us the estimated extra cost of medicines, and where that money will come from, if not from the DHSC budget?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Like the shadow Minister, I will be relatively brief. [Interruption.] It was not clear whether that was a sound of appreciation or disappointment from the Minister. I will assume that she receives everything I say with the same noise and grace.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I sit—and was questioned at some length by the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), about the UK-US trade deal. It was striking that the Secretary of State appeared unable to answer the basic question of whether an impact assessment could be presented to the Committee—under whatever terms of secrecy or confidentiality the Department wanted to place on it—to allow us to assess the costs, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, and, one would hope, the benefits.
The Secretary of State was very clear that there were benefits, but he was unable to outline what they were. He cited commercial confidentiality, which I do understand; there will be commercially confidential elements to the deal. What was really striking, however, was that even though the Select Committee was very happy to receive the information under whatever strictures he wanted to put on it, so that we could scrutinise it, it was not given. That is serious cause for concern.
I understand what the hon. Member for North Shropshire seeks to achieve through new clauses 15 and 76, but there are some problems in their drafting. There will be commercially confidential elements to the deal, so laying it before the House essentially completely unredacted, as new clause 15 would require, might pose real problems. Likewise, I assume that the intention of new clause 76 is to focus specifically on the UK-US trade deal as currently formulated.
Dr Prinsley
Much of the conversation around those trade deals relates to pharmaceuticals from the United States. Our patients should be able to access the best available treatments, whatever deals we cook up. We must support innovative research based in our own country, particularly clinical trials for new medicines. To do that, we need to support clinical academics—the doctors who work in universities and organise research. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the number of clinical academics fell under the previous Conservative Administration? Most clinical academics are now very senior, and we are not recruiting replacements effectively. We need to look after our home-grown pharmaceutical industry so that we do not need such trade deals.
Gregory Stafford
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s penultimate point: we need to support home-grown clinical academics and the life sciences industry in this country. As he has drawn me down that line, I declare that my wife works in the life sciences industry in the UK. I entirely agree with him on that point. However, if he is saying that a corollary is that we should not do pharmaceutical trade deals with other countries, I do not agree, because UK patients need the best medicines no matter where they come from. If that was not what he was saying and I am putting words into his mouth, I apologise, but that is how it sounded to me. I agree that we should support the home-grown, but obviously we need access to medicines from around the world.
That brings me to my concerns about new clause 76. I understand why the hon. Member for Winchester supports it, but the way it is written means that, for the lifetime of the Act, any trade deal with America would have to follow those strictures. Although I accept that he does not like the current deal or the incumbent in the White House, it seems odd that we are singling out in statute, and putting a stricture on, one country over every other. I still probably would not have voted for it, but the new clause might have been more acceptable had it referred to any trade deal with any country, or even a group of countries—I know he is a big fan of one particular group of countries. That might have made it difficult. It would be dangerous essentially for the Bill to put a stricture on a trade deal with one specific country—especially one that is probably our strongest ally. I think that sits very badly.
Sojan Joseph
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the existing constitutional arrangements already provide mechanisms, ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny? Singling out one country is a politicising measure, and it will have long-term consequences for our relationship.
Gregory Stafford
Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It would be a very slippery slope to write that into legislation. I understand the motivation—as I often do—behind Liberal Democrat new clause 76, but I do not think its drafting is appropriate in this context, and I cannot support it.
Joe Robertson
As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we on the Health and Social Care Committee heard from the Secretary of State yesterday. These new clauses were obviously drafted in advance, but the timing of their consideration is rather good.
We had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State, who sits right at the top of the Department, some fairly basic questions about the deal that will apparently see the NHS pay 25% more for US drugs than it does currently. We asked, for example, how much it will cost. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, skewered the Secretary of State within minutes. A short while later, once the Secretary of State had had the chance to reflect on her queries, I had the opportunity to ask some even more basic questions. I asked not what the figure was, but whether one even existed or whether any analysis had been done. We ended up going backwards.
We parliamentarians and the public still do not know the answers to some basic questions, even though a deal has been done. Do we know how much it will cost? Does a figure exist? Has an analysis been done? Are we talking about a figure or a bracket? On what basis was the deal agreed? We received absolutely no answers at all to those questions. To conclude, I posed a fairly obvious question: how on earth can we strike a deal to pay 25% more for drugs that we already get without knowing how much it will cost? No answer was given to that question either.
It is no wonder that these fundamental questions have effectively come in the middle of the Bill’s passage. This is not the place for them, but in the absence of basic answers, I can see why the hon. Member for Winchester and others have raised these issues. I will ask the same questions of the Minister. If her boss cannot answer them, perhaps she can, as the Department has had 24 hours to reflect. How much will the deal with the US cost? Are there—even if the Government do not want to disclose them—a figure and an impact assessment?
If the Government can confirm that a figure or bracket exists, why are they not willing to discuss them? If the Government can confirm that some sort of impact assessment has been done, when did it happen and why are they not disclosing it? Until we get those answers, so that people can see the fundamental considerations on which the Government base their decisions, this is a fairly unappealing way of going about securing investment for life sciences.
The Secretary of State talked about the benefits of this deal, and I am sure that there are benefits. I do not disagree with the principle of paying more for drugs if it has benefits for research and development—I understand and support that principle—but I want to be able to see what those intended benefits are, in some form of document or analysis. I do not want bare statements that say, “Research and development is good.” We all know that; I want to see the cost.
New clause 15 would also set a cost threshold of £100 million. The Government are not in a position to confirm whether the US deal would qualify under clause 15. It would at least force the Government’s hand. I suspect that the sum is far higher—into the billions—but we do not know. We are left to sit and speculate, despite the Secretary of State’s appearance before the Health and Social Care Committee. He must have expected that question to be asked. He was flanked by the permanent secretary of the Department and the chief executive of NHS England. By the way, he was a Treasury Minister prior to becoming the Secretary of State just two months ago. We had all the key people in the room to give some sort of indication about cost and benefit, yet none was forthcoming.
Although I cannot back the new clause, because I do not think statute is the right place to ask these questions, I completely understand why it was tabled. She will not accept the new clause, but could the Minister at least answer some of the questions that parliamentarians and the public are asking?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to talk about the impact of trade arrangements on NHS spending and how arrangements are scrutinised by Parliament. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for the new clauses.
Our relationship with industry, life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, is crucial not only to our patients and constituents, but to growth in our country. Many hon. Members will have companies large and small in their constituencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has Lynam Pharma in hers. Important local companies are doing great work, innovating and bringing great people together to work on behalf of the life sciences sector and our country. They make us proud to be a leading country in this area, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for his leadership to put this country back in its rightful place on the international stage, addressing yet another part of our international reputation that was trashed by the Conservative party. [Interruption.] You started it.
On new clause 15, parliamentary scrutiny is crucial to ensure that trade deals negotiated by this Government are in the best interests of the UK. That is why the Government are committed to transparency and to enabling effective scrutiny of our trade agenda. Nowhere is scrutiny more important than in considering the potential impact of trade agreements on public services such as the NHS. The Government have a clear framework in place for scrutiny of the trade agreements that we have negotiated. This process strikes the right balance between ensuring that appropriate parliamentary accountability can take place and preserving our ability to negotiate agreements effectively. That is important to ensure that the UK can negotiate credibly with its partners and secure in trade deals positive outcomes for the public and British businesses, while upholding and protecting the role of Parliament.
Helen Morgan
The disquiet about the deal comes from the fact that the sums involved are huge—possibly £9 billion a year, or even more towards the back of the 10-year period—according to big companies in the sector. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry was not involved in the negotiation of the deal; it was negotiated with the US. We fully support of the life sciences sector in this country, and there is a complex debate to be had about access to novel medicines for people with unusual and rare diseases, and about balancing that with everybody else’s access to volume services on the frontline, but that important discussion should be had by Parliament and the British people, not between a trade negotiator and Donald Trump’s White House. That is where our disquiet comes from, and it is why we tabled these new clauses.
Karin Smyth
I understand the intent of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and her commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as that of her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope that some of my points will address that.
New clause 15 duplicates existing processes and creates responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Health that would cut across our important procedures for scrutiny. No trade agreement can, by itself, change UK domestic law or require new public expenditure without the usual domestic processes being followed. Any changes to legislation necessary to implement a trade agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. It is right that the Government be held to account, to ensure that trade deals deliver for the country. However, those processes are already in place and are working.
Joe Robertson
To strip this back further, can the Minister confirm whether a deal has been done?
Karin Smyth
I am not party to the negotiations. That is above my pay grade, like the conversation yesterday that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. I will get back to him on any outstanding questions, as the Department will to the Select Committee with other details.
Dave Robertson
To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to
“supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.”
That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend clearly highlights the advantages for his constituents and the importance, particularly for that university and universities across the country, of such outward-facing arrangements, which benefit constituencies in many ways, not only through employment, but through the pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and so on, that help all our constituents.
New clause 76 specifically references the trade arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom. That landmark partnership with the United States Government on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs is in the best interest of UK patients, supporting the NHS and the economy. As a result of the changes to the UK’s medicines pricing, NHS patients will get improved access to lifesaving treatments. New medicines have already been recommended under the updated approach, including a brain cancer drug available to patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for a rare, aggressive stomach cancer—something that I think the entire House and the Committee would support.
Liz Twist
I want to emphasise a point that has already been made, which is the positive impact of the agreement for people with rare and undiagnosed conditions. As the Minister will know, I have worked with a number of those organisations, and this is certainly an opportunity for innovative treatments to be funded, as they might not have been before. I thank the Minister for that.
Karin Smyth
Again, this is an area of work that my hon. Friend has led on for many years, as I have seen, often when many others have not been around to support it. With so many organisations and charities lobbying on behalf of so many people who are desperate for rare diseases in particular to be highlighted—those diseases that affect a small number of people, many of them children—that work is crucial. Her work in leading in this place is exemplary. That is exactly where we aim to get by working with our partners in difficult circumstances. Trade deals and negotiations are necessarily difficult—otherwise, they would be easy—but the hard work yields results for people. As I have said, this Government have taken an outward approach to working with our partners and with industry.
We have already taken steps towards achieving our commitments, most notably increasing the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. The Government previously updated Parliament in two ministerial statements, and of course MPs quite rightly have the option to continue to table parliamentary questions. Officials should be able to produce confidential advice for Ministers, to inform trade or other negotiations, and we must maintain that confidentiality in this case, as the impact assessment contains commercially sensitive assumptions. It is scenario-based and remains linked to live policy development. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for her comments. It is good to hear cross-party recognition of how important the life sciences sector is in the UK, to universities and businesses as knowledge transfer partnerships. This is a huge opportunity not only to improve the health of the nation and the treatments available, but to boost the economy.
We will withdraw new clause 15, but I thought the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke extremely well about his concerns relating to the trade deal.
Joe Robertson
I think that the hon. Member has spoken very well, too, and I am grateful to him for airing this important subject through his new clause.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.
Dr Johnson
This Government came to power saying that they would be more transparent, but they have not been. It took us months to get numbers out of the Government about the Chagos Islands deal.
Dr Chambers
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that intervention.
Unless something changes significantly by the time we get to vote on new clause 76, which I understand will not be today, we will press it to a vote for transparency’s sake, but we will withdraw new clause 15. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers
“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—
‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers
(1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers within its area.
(2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by carers,
(b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health,
(c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and
(d) the need to ensure carers are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support.
(3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area—
(a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes,
(b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and
(c) provide carers with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing.
(4) In preparing a Joint Forward Plan, an integrated care board must include—
(a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of carers within its area,
(b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for carers, and
(c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by carers.
(5) In this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 17—Duty to identify and record unpaid carers—
“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—
‘Duty to identify and record unpaid carers
(1) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to identify persons within its area who are unpaid carers.
(2) An integrated care board must make arrangements to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area—
(a) maintain appropriate systems for recording whether a person is an unpaid carer,
(b) use consistent coding standards for the recording of unpaid carers in health records,
(c) review and update records relating to unpaid carers at appropriate intervals, and
(d) ensure that the identification and recording of unpaid carers forms part of—
(i) primary care registration processes,
(ii) hospital discharge procedures,
(iii) care planning processes, and
(iv) other relevant patient contact pathways.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”
This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to identify and record unpaid carers when they come into contact with NHS services.
New clause 18—National Respite Care Scheme—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) a local authority carrying out a carer’s assessment under section 10 of the Care Act 2014 to be required to consider whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring responsibilities.
(b) unpaid carers to receive support to take breaks from their caring responsibilities to—
(i) maintain their physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing,
(ii) participate in work, education, training or recreation, and
(iii) participate in family and community life.
(c) a carer to receive appropriate support if a local authority carrying out an assessment under subsection (2)(a) determines that a carer is unable to take sufficient breaks from caring.
(3) Under subsection (2), “support” may include—
(a) replacement care for the cared-for person;
(b) respite services;
(c) any other steps a local authority considers appropriate as support.
(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient support to local authorities to ensure the scheme under subsection (1) is delivered in every local authority.
(5) For the purposes of this section “unpaid carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a National Respite Care Scheme.
New clause 89—Duty of health bodies to provide information and advice to carers—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make provision for an information and support service for unpaid carers.
(2) The service under subsection (1) must include—
(a) provision for an unpaid carer to access information regarding recommended care and treatment needs for the person for whom they are caring,
(b) information about services, support and assistance available from the National Health Service to assist unpaid carers in their caring role,
(c) information about the availability of support for unpaid carers provided by local authorities,
(d) information about support available to promote and maintain the health, wellbeing and resilience of unpaid carers,
(e) information about arrangements for obtaining advice, training, advocacy or peer support relevant to unpaid carers’ caring role, and
(f) any other provisions which the Secretary of State considers appropriate for supporting unpaid carers in relation to their delivery of care.
(3) In exercising the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must prioritise proactive identification of unpaid carers and ensuring that information and advice is accessible, proportionate and appropriate to the needs of unpaid carers.
(4) In exercising the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to an unpaid carer’s willingness and ability to provide care.
(5) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that unpaid carers are made aware of the information and advice available under this section.
(6) For the purposes of this section, ‘unpaid carer’ has the meaning given to ‘carer’ in section 10 of the Care Act 2014.”
This new clause would create a duty for the Secretary of State to provide certain information and advice to unpaid carers.
Dr Chambers
I will speak to new clauses 16, 17 and 18 together. They relate to the duty on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Certainly, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, and having been a carer myself—like many people in this room—I have a particular interest in the mental health of carers. Sometimes we forget that, as well as the patient, the carer also needs a huge amount of support, as what they do can be very draining.
Unpaid carers are essential to the sustainability of the NHS and social care system, but carers consistently experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes than non-carers, and frequently struggle to access support for their own health needs. There are approximately 4.7 million unpaid carers in England. They provide support valued at an estimated £152 billion annually—equivalent to the annual NHS budget.
Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The GP patient survey 2025 showed that 72% of carers report a long-term condition or disability compared with 61% of non-carers. The Office for National Statistics reports that one in four adults providing unpaid care described being in “not good health”, compared with one in five adults who are not providing unpaid care. The probability of reporting being in “not good health” was higher for people providing more hours of unpaid care. Some 49% of unpaid carers reported at least one adverse health effect from providing that care. Low mental wellbeing was more common among unpaid carers, at about 20%, than among those not providing unpaid care, at 15%.
An academic study analysing GP patient survey data found that, for those caring for more than 50 hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to losing 18 days of full health every year. A study has also found that carers cancel medical treatments and appointments because nobody is available to step into their caring role, and that, because of their caring responsibilities, carers cannot find appointments at times when they can attend.
A more targeted approach to support unpaid carers could help to prevent the onset of deteriorating carer health and wellbeing as a result of their caring roles. Although ICBs have broad duties relating to population health and inequalities, there is currently no explicit statutory duty requiring ICBs to improve the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers specifically.
Liz Twist
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Winchester talking about the new clauses; they have a great deal of similarity to new clause 89, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). We all know that it is absolutely vital to look after our carers. They do a huge amount of work to support us and make sure that people are kept at home and cared for.
New clause 89 covers a number of issues, and would create a duty on health bodies to provide information and advice to unpaid carers and task the Secretary of State with providing that service. It would ask first for information about medicine and medicine records, which we talked about a few days ago. Beyond that, it asks for information about services and support available from the NHS to help in their role as carers, and about support for their own needs and health, which are hugely important. It also asks for information about the support available to them and how to get more advice in their role.
I will not go over all the arguments again, but we heard about Carers UK’s “State of Caring” survey in 2025. Some 29% of carers say that they need more information and advice about caring, such as support with clinical tasks or managing someone’s condition. Many of them provide support with medication and administering it. Many also monitor blood pressure or sugar level, dress wounds and use equipment. In all these new clauses about carers, the discussion is about how we can best support carers in that role. They have a vital role, and I know that the Government recognise the important contribution they make to healthcare, so it is important that we consider the issue here.
Dr Johnson
This group of new clauses is about carers and how we look after them. They do so much work for so many people across the country by looking after their loved ones. Many of them are not necessarily in good health themselves, and some are even children. These new clauses have a positive intention: to try to improve carers’ lives and make sure that they are recognised.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on his success in keeping open his respite care centre. Perhaps he could share his notes with me, because the Reform county council in Lincolnshire is currently trying to close Swallow Lodge, a respite care centre that provides for people of working age who have severe disabilities. The council wants to close it, and the people there are devastated by that suggestion. We had a public meeting, which many people came to, and they had not been consulted at that point. I think that an assumption was made that they are not able to communicate, but many of them are able to do so with support. However, that communication had not happened.
It has caused fear for people. They are worried about where they will go instead and whether it will be suitable. What about the people they made friendships with at the centre? Many of them have elderly parents—in their 80s, in some cases. It is also economically short-sighted, because people may end up going into full-time care, which will ultimately cost the council more.
The council has now been persuaded to do a full consultation, which will happen over the next few months. If the hon. Member can share anything with me that was successful for him that could help me keep Swallow Lodge open against the Reform county council’s changes, I would be very grateful.
Sojan Joseph
As the chair of the APPG on adult social care, I pay tribute to unpaid carers for the enormous contribution they make to their families, their communities and wider society. I often have meetings with them, and as part of my job before I became an MP—I worked in the NHS—I had a lot of contact with carers. I have seen so many vulnerable patients benefit from the enormous amount of work that carers do. In some services, such as the mental health service, there is already provision for identifying carers, carers’ assessments and support for carers. Carers provide extraordinary support, often at great personal sacrifice.
Although the intention here is to make the wellbeing of carers a statutory duty, we need to be careful that we do not put any statutory responsibility for that on the NHS and create more administrative burden for it. I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that point, and if the Government would consider something to support carers, while not putting any more administrative burden on the NHS, where we are focusing on providing more support on the frontline.
New clauses 16 and 17 would impose new obligations on integrated care boards to promote carers’ wellbeing and to identify and record unpaid carers whenever they come into contact with NHS services. I want to make it clear that we should not create any more administrative burdens for NHS frontline services. Although identifying and supporting carers is important, the requirement would add to the administrative burden on NHS organisations at a time when they should be focusing on delivering frontline care.
We should be cautious about creating new statutory duties that divert resources and staff time away from patients. The proposal for a national respite care scheme is similarly well intentioned, but it risks imposing a centralised, one-size-fits-all model across a system that already makes local authorities and health boards responsible for assessing local needs and delivering support. Again, although we need more support for carers, we should be careful that we are not duplicating any of the services that are already available. Some charities also do a brilliant job of supporting carers. The provisions in these new clauses should be looked into, but we need to be cautious that we do not create more burdens for our existing systems.
Joe Robertson
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for introducing these new clauses and for the debate that that is allowing us to have. Unpaid carers are too often a silent and fundamentally unappreciated part of society, which the system could not cope without. They are family members who are thrown into the role of looking after their loved ones, which they did not expect to have to do. Most of them have no formal qualifications, but through love and family ties, they provide unpaid support, which in many cases has a negative effect on the financial wellbeing of the household and involves a huge amount of emotional toil.
The crisis in social care has lasted for decades under different Governments, who have struggled to tackle it, and it is putting increasing pressure on family carers. Many do not see themselves as a carer—they see themselves as a husband, wife, daughter, son or friend—but they provide millions of hours of care and support, year in and year out. My former role was at a national nursing charity that seeks to support the families of those living with dementia. I saw for myself how much wraparound care can achieve in relieving pressure and unnecessary suffering, not just for the person living with dementia—it does not have to be dementia, but that is what I have experience of—long-term frailty or conditions that require support, but for their family and carer. Very often, the biggest care need for the person living with dementia is the biggest need their family carer has; if we can sort the family carer’s biggest need, they can go on and do so much more for the person they love.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for allowing us to have this debate. I urge the Government, if they do not adopt these new clauses, to do all they can to relieve the pressure on unpaid carers up and down the country and to provide support for them.
Karin Smyth
Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. All Members are committed to ensuring that carers receive the care and support they need. The Government recognise that unpaid carers play a vital role in sustaining the health and wellbeing of millions of people across our country. I pay tribute to them, and recognise all the work they have contributed to. I also note the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford on the APPG with Members from across the House.
The hon. Member for Winchester highlighted the shocking impact on the physical and mental health of people who are caring, which we heard about in the evidence session. That is an important issue, and it is good that we can now talk more about the mental health of carers. As he rightly said, many of us are carers. It is not an easy thing to do.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his comments about the importance of wraparound care to people who do not want to leave the one they care for. I recognise that respite care is important.
I wish the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham good luck in her campaign in her constituency with the Reform council.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for her good wishes. The council has not just proposed closing Swallow Lodge; it has also recently closed the memory support service. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said about services for people with dementia, and this is another area where people will suffer because of the closure of vital services.
Karin Smyth
When the hon. Lady gets back to her constituency, I am sure she will be campaigning heavily on behalf of her constituents.
We acknowledge the need to support carers’ health and wellbeing, but we do not think new clause 16 is necessary, because the existing legal framework already requires the system to support them. The new clause duplicates existing duties and risks adding complexity, rather than improving support in practice. Carers are explicitly referenced in the NHS constitution, which establishes the principles and values of the NHS in England and sets out the aim of improving the health and wellbeing of the population. The Secretary of State for Health, all NHS bodies, private and voluntary sector providers supplying NHS services, and local authorities in the exercise of their public health functions are required by law to take account of the constitution in their decisions and actions. Local authorities and NHS bodies also have a duty of co-operation in respect of their functions relating to carers.
Finally, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will take on NHS England’s role in promoting the involvement of each patient in decisions relating to their illness, care or treatment. That duty includes the involvement of carers and representatives.
Liz Twist
As the Minister says, many people in this room have had experience of being a carer for a family member. She said that there is already a legal framework, but carers are clearly saying that they need a bit more. How will the Government ensure that we provide not just words and legal documents, but help on the ground?
Karin Smyth
I was just moving on to talk about some of the work beyond the legislative framework.
Beyond the legislative framework, our focus is on delivering practical improvements because, as my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely what people want. We are committed to ensuring that carers have the support they need. Through measures in the 10-year health plan, we are already equipping and supporting carers by making them more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and streamlining their care tasks by introducing a new My Carer section on the NHS app. We are also working with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education to consider how best to recognise and support unpaid carers. The Government are preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers, to be published this year.
Dr Prinsley
Will the Minister acknowledge that the uplift in the carer’s earnings allowance is a very significant measure that this Government did introduce?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend. That is indeed one of the ways in which, working through the DWP and across Government, we have sought to bring in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett said, practical measures to make carers visible and to support them. That is exactly the sort of thing we wanted to do and have done, and it does start to recognise the work that people do.
Let me turn to new clause 17 and new clause 89, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett talked about and which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, whose expertise and commitment in this area are well known across the House. The new clauses look at the identification of, and provision of information to, unpaid carers. I agree on the importance of ensuring that carers are properly recorded and identified in the system and provided with relevant information and advice so that they can be better supported and involved in care decisions.
However, we do not believe that explicit requirements to identify and record particular patient and carer groups are appropriate for legislation. We have made clear commitments in the NHS 10-year health plan and are taking practical steps to improve identification, support carers and involve them in care planning. If we need to mandate compliance, that is best done by including requirements in national NHS contracts or in statutory guidance or directions, where we can provide more detail and directly address barriers.
Information about unpaid carers will be captured systematically to ensure that their responsibilities are recognised and supported, and developments such as the single patient record, which we have discussed in Committee, will make that easier in the future. That is a really important step forward.
We are also looking to support general practice in better identifying and recording which of their patients are unpaid carers, to help ensure that those carers can get the support they need in the community. NHS England recently published guidance to support that, and work is ongoing to ensure more consistent coding of unpaid carers by general practitioners.
We are also working to improve the quality of local authority data on unpaid carers. The Partners in Care and Health programme, launched with the Local Government Association, is working with local authorities to improve their data and address barriers to data sharing between local systems.
Dr Prinsley
Since I have been an MP, I have visited a number of schools in my constituency, and I have always been struck by the number of children who are carers. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think that is a very under-recognised group of people, whose lives are completely dominated by the fact that they are carers for their parents.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend. I heard audible voices of approval for that point. I think that when any of us know or encounter children, whether it be in our own circle or when we visit schools in our constituency, we are very much struck by those who are at school and are themselves caring. I think most schools do a tremendous job where they recognise that. Often children, like adults, do not want to inform their school or local people that that is what they are doing—they are very proud—and perhaps the person they are caring for does not know how to do that. I have certainly seen in my constituency schools starting to recognise and support the needs of those children, in a way that is dignified and respecting of privacy.
I did allude to some of the work that we are doing across Government, including with the Department for Education, to recognise, and to find ways to support, those young people, many of whom want to support their loved ones. I think we have all seen great ways to support them. When we are addressing young children in classrooms, I am always conscious of the need to think about the circumstances in which we are talking to them. There are a lot of teenage carers as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is absolutely right to highlight that.
More broadly, apart from data sharing and addressing barriers, the My Carer section of the NHS app will allow people to securely prove that they are providing care. That will streamline the care responsibilities of carers significantly—again, that can be done without having to confront the situation in public, if that is what people want—while giving them a means to seek advice or reassurance directly from a range of professionals when they need it.
I am also not convinced that the challenge of providing effective support would be solved by an additional legal duty. The existing legal framework already requires the system to support carers, including through the provision of information and advice. As the Committee has discussed, practical steps are what is needed. Progress is being made locally through issuing practical toolkits to help hospitals implement their legal duties under the Health and Care Act 2022. This year, the Government will also commission the better care fund support programme, led by the Local Government Association, to work with the NHS and social care partners to strengthen their approach to involving unpaid carers in discharge planning.
New clause 18 would establish a national respite care scheme. The Government do not feel that that is necessary, as the legal framework already provides rights for carers to access support, including respite services. Under the Care Act 2014, where a carer appears to have support needs, whether those are current or in the future, local authorities are required to carry out a carer’s assessment. Where carers have eligible needs, local authorities have duties and powers to meet them. That establishes a framework where needs assessments and subsequent care planning focuses on the individual and their circumstances, rather than prescribing a particular service or solution. In other words, respite care is already one of the many forms of care and support that might be offered as part of the process, where it is appropriate to meet the needs of the individual carer.
Funding and mechanisms are in place to enable local areas to deliver support for carers. Under the better care fund framework, there is £9 billion for integrated care boards and local authorities to make joint plans and to pool budgets to deliver better, joined-up care. In developing their better care fund plans, ICBs and local authorities should consider how pooled funding can help the NHS and local authorities to meet duties on unpaid carers, including around short breaks and respite services.
The Government are also making available more than £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, to support the sector to make improvements. Local areas will determine how best to use the money to support carers, depending on local need and with reference to their statutory responsibilities.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw new clause 16, and hon. Members not to press new clauses 17, 18 and 89 to a vote.
Dr Chambers
I thank Committee members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke particularly well and emotively—I know that he worked for Dementia UK before entering Parliament. My mother was a carer for my father, who had dementia, and my sister and I gave her respite care, although probably not enough of it. I know that many Committee members will have been in a similar situation, as it is a common disease, and it is becoming increasingly common. I also thank the Minister for her comments and reassurance.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a point about children being carers. I sat on the Mental Health Bill Committee last year, and to give an example of how impactful such Committees can be, it is now a requirement, as a result of the Committee’s consideration, to identify whether mental health patients have children who are carers. That was not the case before, and we appreciated the Government engaging with us on that issue. It is often teenagers who care for adults with severe mental health issues, but they were not even identified before, so they could not be given the support they required. That has changed now, and it is fantastic to see that, through Committee scrutiny, we can make a tangible difference to people’s lives.
I will not press new clauses 16 and 17 to votes, but the Liberal Democrats do think that it would be sensible and impactful to establish a national respite care scheme, so I will press new clause 18 to a Division. On new clause 16, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
National Respite Care Scheme
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme.
(2) The scheme under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) a local authority carrying out a carer’s assessment under section 10 of the Care Act 2014 to be required to consider whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring responsibilities.
(b) unpaid carers to receive support to take breaks from their caring responsibilities to—
(i) maintain their physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing,
(ii) participate in work, education, training or recreation, and
(iii) participate in family and community life.
(c) a carer to receive appropriate support if a local authority carrying out an assessment under subsection (2)(a) determines that a carer is unable to take sufficient breaks from caring.
(3) Under subsection (2), ‘support’ may include—
(a) replacement care for the cared-for person;
(b) respite services;
(c) any other steps a local authority considers appropriate as support.
(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient support to local authorities to ensure the scheme under subsection (1) is delivered in every local authority.
(5) For the purposes of this section ‘unpaid carer’ has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a National Respite Care Scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 62—Family support duty following serious childhood diagnosis—
“(1) Where a child is diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must, within 14 days of diagnosis, ensure that the child’s family is offered appropriate information, support and coordination services.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the responsible NHS provider must offer—
(a) access to a named family support coordinator;
(b) information regarding welfare benefits, financial support and relevant public services;
(c) information regarding employment rights and workplace support available to parents and carers;
(d) signposting to appropriate mental health and psychological support services;
(e) information regarding relevant local and national charities, support organisations and peer-support services;
(f) a written Family Support Plan setting out the support available to the family during treatment; and
(g) notification and information sharing in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) The responsible NHS provider must provide the child’s registered general practitioner and where different, the registered general practitioners of the child’s parents or primary carers, with a Family Support Summary.
(4) A Family Support Summary must include—
(a) the child’s diagnosis;
(b) the proposed treatment plan;
(c) the expected duration and intensity of treatment, where known;
(d) information regarding the potential impact of the diagnosis and treatment on parents, carers and siblings; and
(e) any recommendations regarding wellbeing support, monitoring or referral for the family unit.
(5) Following receipt of a Family Support Summary, the relevant general practice shall be encouraged to consider the wellbeing needs of parents, carers and siblings and, where appropriate, provide information, assessment, referral or signposting to suitable support services.
(6) NHS England must publish guidance for NHS providers on the discharge of duties under this section.
(7) In this section—
‘child’ means a person under the age of 16;
‘family’ includes parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings;
‘life-threatening condition’ means a condition designated as such by the Secretary of State in guidance.”
This new clause places a duty on NHS providers to offer practical information, coordination and support to families within 14 days of a child being diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition.
New clause 63—Parent mental health and bereavement support duty—
“(1) Where a child is diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the psychological wellbeing of parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings is considered as part of the child’s care pathway.
(2) Within 14 days of diagnosis, the responsible NHS provider must offer—
(a) a parental psychological wellbeing assessment;
(b) access to a designated family support practitioner, psychologist, counsellor or other appropriately qualified professional;
(c) information regarding the psychological impact of serious childhood illness, including trauma, anxiety, depression, stress and bereavement;
(d) a written Family Mental Health Support Plan;
(e) notification to the child’s registered general practitioner and, where different, the registered general practitioners of parents or primary carers.
(3) During active treatment, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that parents and primary carers are offered periodic psychological wellbeing reviews.
(4) The responsible NHS provider must offer an additional psychological wellbeing review following any—
(a) significant deterioration in the child’s condition,
(b) relapse,
(c) progression of disease,
(d) transition to palliative care, or
(e) other material change in prognosis.
(5) The responsible NHS provider must ensure that support under this section is offered proactively and must not be dependent upon a parent, guardian, carer or sibling requesting support, identifying their own need, or making a self-referral.
(6) Following the death of a child, the responsible NHS provider must—
(a) offer a bereavement wellbeing assessment to parents or primary carers;
(b) offer access to bereavement counselling, psychological support or equivalent specialist services;
(c) make proactive contact with the family within 14 days of the child’s death;
(d) offer further follow-up support at intervals specified in guidance issued by NHS England;
(e) ensure that referral pathways are available where significant psychological distress, trauma, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress symptoms are identified.
(7) The responsible NHS provider must ensure that information regarding available support services is provided to siblings and that age-appropriate emotional support pathways are available where required.
(8) NHS England must publish guidance regarding—
(a) parental psychological wellbeing assessments;
(b) family mental health support following serious childhood diagnosis;
(c) bereavement support following the death of a child;
(d) support for siblings affected by serious childhood illness;
(e) referral pathways into specialist mental health services;
(f) minimum standards for proactive family mental health support.
(9) NHS England must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on compliance with this section.
(10) In this section—
‘child’ means a person under the age of 16;
‘family’ includes parents, guardians, primary carers and siblings;
‘life-threatening condition’ means a condition designated by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(11) The Secretary of State must, within three years of the commencement of this section, undertake a review of its operation and lay a report before Parliament.”
This new clause would establish a statutory duty on NHS providers to identify and support the psychological wellbeing of parents, carers and siblings following the diagnosis of a life threatening childhood condition. It would create a proactive, opt-out family mental health pathway from diagnosis through treatment and, where applicable, bereavement.
New clause 64—Review of uncertain imaging findings in high-risk childhood illness—
“(1) Where imaging undertaken in relation to a child with a high-risk cancer or other life threatening condition identifies findings that are—
(a) inconclusive,
(b) indeterminate, or
(c) suspicious,
the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the findings are reviewed by a consultant clinician responsible for the child's care.
(2) Following such review, the responsible NHS provider must ensure that the child’s parent, guardian or primary carer is informed—
(a) of the nature of the uncertainty identified;
(b) whether disease progression, relapse or recurrence can be confidently excluded;
(c) what further investigations or surveillance are being considered; and
(d) the risks and benefits associated with immediate further imaging, alternative imaging modalities, or continued observation.
(3) Where disease progression or relapse cannot be confidently excluded, the responsible NHS provider must consider whether additional imaging or investigation should be undertaken within 14 days or as soon as clinically practicable, whichever is sooner.
(4) The outcome of any discussion held under subsection (2), including the views expressed by the child's parent, guardian or primary carer, must be recorded in the child's medical records.
(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the operation of this section, including circumstances in which further imaging should be considered following uncertain or indeterminate findings.”
This new clause requires consultant review of uncertain imaging findings in children with designated high-risk conditions. The amendment also aims to ensure that parents are informed of the uncertainty, the available options and the risks and benefits of those options before a decision is made.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who tabled new clause 25, asked me to speak to it, which I shall do briefly. This is a very serious issue. Critically ill children are infants, children and adolescents with life-threatening illness or injury, often requiring intensive, continuous care to survive conditions from leukaemia to meningococcal disease, traumatic brain injuries and major surgery such as spinal surgery. I should say that I am a consultant paediatrician, but I have worked in paediatric intensive care as a junior—now called a resident—doctor.
The new clause as drafted does not, I think, do what the hon. Member was aiming for. When I read it through, I think he is looking at cases such as the tragic one of little Charlie Gard, whom we all remember died of encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, known as MDDS. It is incredibly rare. That tragic case highlighted the potential for disputes between parents and doctors, which, thankfully, are unusual.
The new clause is headed, “Parents of critically ill children: communication and involvement in decision-making”. Of course parents should be involved in decision making about their children, but it is worth noting that the median time that children spend in ICU is two days and that, thankfully, most of them get better—very few do not. The new clause talks about teachers being involved, which in most cases is unnecessary and impractical; in many cases, a child may be admitted on a Friday and discharged from the ICU by the Monday. In the majority of cases, there is no practical reason for teachers to be involved.
I understand the desire for parents to be part of every meeting, but sometimes clinicians need to be able to talk frankly about cases. Sometimes they will have multidisciplinary meetings where they talk about a plethora of different cases, or they may compare one case with another in terms of what they have seen, the findings of scans and the like, so it is not possible to have parents in every single meeting, although it is of course desirable for them to be aware of the discussions.
Other parts of the new clause, including provision for parents to know about everything and to set out how communication and language needs may be met, seem reasonable. It mentions independent mediation where there is disagreement, which is a beneficial way to go about things, but we must not legislate so as to get in the way of urgent care, because most critically ill children in intensive care have urgent care needs that need dealing with now, not in a week’s time. Forming ethics committees to make decisions takes a long time, and that would get in the way of urgent care.
I think the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley is aiming for legislation that relates to chronically mechanically ventilated children with significant medical conditions, rather than children with an acute critical illness, but I said I would move the new clause and I have. I think he is trying to provide better care for some of the sickest children. That is a desirable aim and I know he cares deeply about it, but the new clause as drafted would not do what I think he aims for, and it could get in the way of paediatricians and others managing some of the sickest children in the country, so I will not press it to a vote.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley for tabling new clause 25, and grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her comments on it. It is a genuine pleasure to hear the expertise of clinicians such as her who work in the field of children’s health. She is obviously very passionate about that, and I thank her for bringing her expertise and commitment to looking after children, including critically ill children, to the Committee.
I recognise the profound impact that receiving a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition has on a child and their wider family. At such an overwhelming time in their lives, it is vital that families feel supported, informed and able to navigate the care and services available to them. We recognise that families can face huge variation in the support available and that they have to navigate complex systems at a particularly difficult time. I know that many hon. Members support many families in such circumstances in their constituencies. The Government are committed to ensuring that families have access to the support they need in the most straightforward way possible.
New clause 25 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards on communications with parents of critically ill children and on parents’ involvement in decision making in respect of the treatment or care of their child. We heard from the Opposition spokesperson about some of the operational issues with some of its provisions, but there are no issues with its intent: of course parents should be involved and have good decision making at such a time.
Decisions about the care of a critically ill child can of course be distressing. We need to ensure that we get the process right from the beginning. That starts with good communication, sensitive handling and ensuring best practice across the system. Healthcare professionals should always act in the best interests of their patients; the views of parents are of course very important, but the child’s best interests are paramount, and we should not do anything that undermines that crucial principle. It is important that families and medical professionals communicate and, where possible, reach agreement on the care and treatment that is in the best interests of the child.
To support that, there are already many excellent examples of guidance and best practice across the health system. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is currently updating its framework for clinical practice on navigating decisions to provide, limit or withdraw treatment towards the end of a child’s life. That framework will include communication principles, legal and ethical principles, and clinical and practical considerations, including the role of clinical ethics services. It will also include guidance on navigating disagreements for professionals, children, young people and their families. An e-learning platform is available to staff working at all levels in children’s healthcare. The training programme provides professionals with a suite of resources to enhance knowledge, skills and confidence. It supports healthcare providers to recognise, manage and de-escalate conflict between families and healthcare providers where it occurs, and to signpost to both professional resources and resources for families. The actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is setting out the important guidance that can be provided to clinicians managing the care of children who are seriously unwell. I want to add for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which is producing that guidance; I am grateful to her for setting out its importance. End-of-life-care decisions are very difficult. They need to be taken in conjunction with families but—the Minister is absolutely right—they must be made in the best interests of the child in all cases.
Karin Smyth
I am sure that the college will make best use of the hon. Member’s clinical expertise and her expertise as a legislator to get that guidance right. We work with royal colleges to ensure that we get the best clinical evidence into guidelines. I hope the actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice, training and guidance on shared decision making and dispute resolution, so that it is embedded across the system.
There are a number of other important measures in this group that have not been mentioned. Let me just say that, alongside some of the things I have outlined, we want to progress system-wide reforms to improve the way children and young people, and their families, are supported across many conditions. We are working to bring forward a modern service framework for children and young people that will set out how we will improve quality for children and young people’s services in the longer term, as part of our 10-year health plan.
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Appeals against health and social care provision in EHC plans
“(1) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1530) are amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After regulation 42, insert—
‘42A Other matters relating to EHC plans against which appeals may be brought
(1) In addition to the matters set out in section 51(2) of the Act, a child’s parent or a young person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the matters set out in paragraph (2), subject to section 55 of the Act (mediation).
The matters are—
(a) a decision of a local authority, following an EHC needs assessment, that it is not necessary for health care provision or social care provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan;
(b) where an EHC plan is maintained for the child or young person—
(i) the child’s or young person’s health care or social care needs as specified in the plan;
(ii) the health care provision or social care provision specified in the plan.’
(3) In regulation 43 (appeals), after paragraph (2) insert—
‘(3) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—
(a) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c);
(b) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d).
(4) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—
(a) the health care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) are amended;
(b) the social care needs specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) are amended;
(c) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(c) where those needs have not been specified in the plan; and
(d) social care needs, or social care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs or to a disability are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(d) where those needs have not been specified in the plan.
(5) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—
(a) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g);
(b) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h).
(6) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(b), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that—
(a) the health care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) is amended;
(b) the social care provision specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) is amended;
(c) health care provision, or health care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(g) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan; and
(d) social care provision, or social care provision of a particular kind, is specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation 12(1)(h) where that provision has not been specified in the EHC plan.
(7) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of health care needs or health care provision, it must send a copy of the order to the responsible commissioning body.
(8) When sending a copy of an order, the First-tier Tribunal may also send a copy of the decision which disposes of any appeal brought under section 51(1) of the Act or under regulation 42A to the responsible commissioning body.
(9) The responsible commissioning body must respond within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order to—
(a) the child's parent or the young person, and
(b) the local authority that maintains the EHC plan.
(10) The time limit specified in paragraph (9) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply for the responsible commissioning body's response.
(11) A response under paragraph (9) must—
(a) be in writing,
(b) state what steps, if any, the responsible commissioning body has decided to take following its consideration of the order, and
(c) give reasons for any decision not to follow the order, or any part of it.
(12) The local authority must send a copy of the response received from the responsible commissioning body under paragraph (9)(b) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date it was received.
(13) When the First-tier Tribunal makes an order in respect of social care needs or social care provision, the local authority must issue the amended EHC plan to the child's parent or the young person within 5 weeks beginning with the date of the order.
(14) The time limit specified in paragraph (13) does not apply where the First-tier Tribunal directs that a different time limit is to apply.
(15) The local authority must send a copy of the amended EHC plan under paragraph (13) to the Secretary of State within 1 week beginning with the date on which this is issued to the child's parent or the young person.’
(4) The Special Educational Needs and Disability (First-tier Tribunal Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1306) are revoked.
(5) In consequence of the revocation made by subsection (3), the following 15 provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 are also revoked—
(a) regulation 10(3)(e);
(b) regulation 14(2)(e);
(c) regulation 201(11)(e);
(d) regulation 21(10)(e);
(e) regulation 22(5)(e);
(f) regulation 25(2)(e); and
(g) regulation 31(3)(e).”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause extends the powers of the First-tier Tribunal so that when it is determining an appeal it may order that Education, Health and Care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on these matters.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Chambers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 28, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, extends the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when it determines an appeal, it may order that education, health and care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters.
I am sure all Members are probably in a similar situation in that EHCPs, in their various forms, are one of the main reasons we get contacted by constituents; they certainly fill up my inbox. Following the Education Committee’s report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”, which identified significant gaps in accountability and engagement from the DHSC and health services in the special educational needs and disabilities—or SEND—system, the Health and Social Care Committee held a one-off evidence session to build on those findings, looking at the delivery of the health aspects of EHCPs.
The Health and Social Care Committee followed up a recommendation that the Education Committee had made that the powers of the SEND tribunal service should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. SEND tribunals are independent national tribunals that decide appeals against local authority decisions about the special educational needs of children and young people, including decisions made about an EHCP. Currently, they can make binding recommendations in relation to education provision, but not in relation to health and social care needs.
The Education Committee argued:
“This would ensure that when a failure to deliver a health provision specified in an EHC plan occurs, health bodies are legally obligated to take corrective action.”
When the Health and Social Care Committee raised that with witnesses in its evidence session, several were supportive of placing this duty in legislation, although they noted that it would require other reforms to workforce and commissioning arrangements to be successful. New clause 28 would provide a level playing field between education bodies and ICBs, so that ICBs are also under a legal obligation to comply with recommendations from SEND tribunals.
Dr Johnson
I should say that I am a member of the Education Committee. As the hon. Member for Winchester says, new clause 28 would extend the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when determining an appeal, it may order that EHCPs must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters.
It is clearly important that children with special educational needs get the support they need. We are all very aware, from our inboxes, that that does not always happen. I do not know whether putting this into legislation would make it happen, or whether it would need much more work than one clause, but clearly it is a very important aim and I support the principle of it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how she thinks this could work in practice and whether it is legislation or a more widespread plan that is required.
Gregory Stafford
I rise briefly to speak on this as well. I should note for the record that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities.
The hon. Member for Winchester, on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, made the case very strongly. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we took evidence as he described. The lack of a statutory obligation in the current EHCP process is a fundamental problem. We need to ensure that the health elements are put on the same footing as the social care ones. As I am sure is the case in every hon. and right. hon Member’s constituency inbox, the number of children who are receiving or require support with special educational needs and disabilities, and the frustrations with the process both locally and nationally, are rightly something that we, as parliamentarians and policymakers, need to get a grip on.
Karin Smyth
May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon by paying tribute to the families in my constituency of Bristol South who are also struggling? The care of a child is obviously one of the most difficult and important things that a person can do. When that child is in distress and not supported by the system, it is a very hard place for a parent to be. As I think all hon. Members have said, that is an issue that arises a lot in our inboxes, our emails and our constituency surgeries, and it has been difficult to address. I commend the Education Secretary and her team of Ministers for bringing this work forward and starting to tackle the issue.
Dr Prinsley
My wife is an educational psychologist, so I have lived this, in a vicarious fashion, for the last 30 years or more. I understand how the system for special educational needs has evolved, particularly the role of the psychological services and how children are supported. As a result of a series of reforms, in particular during the years of austerity, the services provided by local authorities to schools—particularly the schools’ psychological services—became much more focused on psychologists providing reports to inform the distribution of resources, and much less focused on educational psychologists actually being in schools supporting children. I would like to see a change, such that educational psychologists and their expertise are back in schools, in classrooms, supporting teachers. Time and again when I visit schools, they say, “Let’s get educational psychology support back into schools.” I think that is something my wife would support.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I put on record my thanks—our thanks—to his wife for her work in this area and for making him so aware of the issues, because he is absolutely right. This is a long-in-gestation issue that some of us have watched sadly get worse in our constituencies over recent years. Children only get one chance to come through this system, which is why people feel so passionately about it.
Sojan Joseph
I pay tribute to all the parents and schoolteachers who engaged with me last summer, following the White Paper and the SEND consultation. It has been a huge problem in Kent. Kent county council has been under Conservative administration for the last 25 years. In recent years, it was in special measures because of its SEND provision. Parents really struggled. My inbox is filled with these issues. We know that 98% of SEND provision tribunals rule in the parents’ favour. There has been a long wait. Does the Minister agree that, whether we accept the new clause or not, we need to look into how the NHS and local authorities can work together to make it easier for children, families and schools to get proper provision in place?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his description of what has happened in Kent, which has been under Conservative administration for so long. He is absolutely right about the White Paper. The hard work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the ministerial team have done across the country, regardless of the local political administration, is exemplary. I will come on to talk about the tribunals.
The Government’s SEND reforms aim to transform outcomes for children and young people with SEND and their families, ensuring that the right support is available at the right time and preventing needs from escalating or reaching crisis in the first place. That is why the reforms aim to build a system that parents can trust with collective responsibility in local areas and strong partnership working across education, health and care. That is what parents expect us to be doing.
Liz Twist
I recently held consultation meetings on the proposed SEND reforms in Blaydon and Consett. The message from parents was clear in both places: they wanted greater integration of health into EHCPs. I welcome the Government’s commitment to asking ICBs to work more closely with local authorities to develop SEND reform plans and tackle this issue. Does the Minister agree that it is important for ICBs to take that on board?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for going to hear directly from her constituents. She is right: that message is fairly consistent. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and I played a pivotal role in bringing our ICB and local authorities together as local Members of Parliament. That was a result of our experience with parents and constituents. Members of Parliament from across the House—this is not a party political point—can bring parents together to highlight this issue and use parliamentary power to bring together organisations that sometimes do not listen or know the best way to communicate. Our role in that has been pivotal. The Secretary of State for Education has taken that learning forward across the country.
That is why we are taking the steps to deliver the programme. ICBs have been asked to work with local authorities to develop local SEND reform plans. Those plans will lay the foundation for long-term reform, enabling ongoing monitoring of progress, and draw on knowledge, skills and lived experience held locally. That builds on work that is under way to improve accountability and set expectations of joint working, which is what parents and families expected to happen, but was not happening. Each ICB is expected to have an executive lead on SEND. The NHS medium-term planning framework for the next three years made it clear that ICBs and providers must meet their statutory duties and support delivery of the reforms.
Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission will continue to check how local services, including health, work together for children and young people and hold them accountable. We will also update the SEND code of practice and publish new guidance so that local SEND partnerships have clearer expectations to work to. That is why we have not proposed changes to health and social care appeals to the SEND tribunal or made the decisions binding. This reflects the need for ICBs and NHS providers to retain the flexibility to plan services across their wider populations and prioritise support according to clinical and population need. This aligns with our commitment in the 10-year health plan to create a new NHS operating model where ICBs are the strategic commissioners of local healthcare services. It is worth noting that while tribunal decisions on health and care are non-binding, local authorities and ICBs are expected to follow them, and in most cases do. If they do not follow recommendations, they must send a response setting out the next steps they have decided to take and why.
There is no doubt that health and social care have crucial roles in SEND reforms, with shared ambitions across education, health and care for earlier intervention and support. I reassure the Committee that we are exploring further opportunities to strengthen accountability, as stated in the SEND consultation document. We are considering responses to the consultation, which closed on 18 May, and will set out our next steps in due course. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chambers
I thank everyone for their comments. I thank the Minister for her reassurances on the seriousness of this issue. Given that we are waiting for the response to the report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
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
Backbench Business
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
Conflicts: Impact on Older People
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts; thank you for chairing this debate for us. I have been asking for a debate on this subject for some time. The subject is close to my heart, and not merely as a matter of policy—it is a matter of conscience, human dignity and our shared responsibility for the most vulnerable in our world. I thank hon. Members for attending. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is always very jovial and friendly and tries to give the answers that we hope for.
I want to start by referring to a constituent named Margaret. She is 83 years old and lives in the Ards peninsula, where I live in my constituency of Strangford. She still keeps a photograph on her mantelpiece of the street where she grew up, which was not in the Ards peninsula. It was in Belfast on a street that no longer exists because it was destroyed—a casualty of the troubles that we had in Northern Ireland. Margaret speaks about the cold, the fear, and the long, painful shadow of conflict. She speaks from experience because it is her story. As an 83-year-old, she can remember it very well.
Across Northern Ireland are thousands upon thousands of older people who carry with them a lived memory of trauma. My family lives with the trauma of the death of my cousin Kenneth; my aunt, uncle and family were never the same. Across Northern Ireland, many thousands of families are affected by the troubles. As the title of the debate states, this is about the impact of conflicts on older people. I will refer to conflicts across the world, but the Northern Ireland one is the one that we can draw experience from and illustrate.
That experience, alongside my role in addressing health policy for the Democratic Unionist Party, means I understand viscerally what conflict does to older people—maybe because I am older now myself. I am more conscious of those who are just ahead of me, which makes me very aware of their vulnerability. I think of my mother who is 94—95 next Tuesday, if God spares her. Again, I think of older people and what they have lived through.
A wound does not simply wound the body, although it does that profoundly and permanently. It fractures community and destroys the very networks of care and support on which older people depend. It strips away the intrinsic dignity that every human being deserves, regardless of age, faith and nationality. My own community of the veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Prison Service and their families fully understand the lasting impact of trauma.
Apologies—I should have thanked the Backbench Business Committee at the beginning for allowing this debate.
The global picture is incredibly worrying. The scale of the crisis is mammoth. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200 million people aged 60 and over are living in fragile or conflict-affected settings. Let us take a few moments to let that number sink in: 200 million older people are living in fear, without adequate healthcare and shelter, and too often without any recognition that their needs are specific, urgent and distinct from those of younger people in the same crisis zone.
I wanted this debate because I have felt for some time that we look at the wars and see the young people, the deaths and the lack of education and healthcare. But in the middle of that are people of an older generation with incredible problems.
We see that with devastating clarity in Ukraine. Whenever I read the stories about Ukraine, they move me significantly. Who is left in the villages that are destroyed? Who is left among the ruins? Usually it is the older people, living in the basements. I want to focus on them for a few moments. I have stood consistently with the Ukrainian people in their hour of need, as has the House, the Minister and every hon. Member. Ukraine has the highest proportion of older people affected by conflict anywhere in the world; one in four Ukrainians is aged over 60.
In eastern and southern Ukraine, near the frontline, the situation is even more acute: one in three people who need assistance is over 60 years of age. The families fled, of course, to get away from the violence, the attacks and the Russian aggression. Only 5.4% of the Ukrainian refugees who arrived in Europe were over 65 because elderly people have been left behind, either due to their choosing to remain in their homes because it is the only place they have, usually with their pets—their cats or dogs—or because of severe health conditions that make fleeing conflict zones more difficult, even though the Ukrainians always try to give such people the choice to leave.
The situation has left older people facing acute challenges. Shockingly, around 50% of documented civilian deaths in Ukraine have been of people older than 60 years of age. They have faced severe disruptions to their support systems as family members, friends or carers have left. Some 90% of older people in Ukraine are unable to pay for even their basic medical needs to be met. They are probably in the conflict zones and often their medications, or the medical help that they need, cannot get to them.
Some 43% of older people in Ukraine have at least one disability. I know, from my position as health spokesperson for my party, that when someone gets to a certain age, they do not just have one thing wrong with them but half a dozen things. Complex needs are incredibly common among many elderly people. That makes evacuations and displacement even more challenging. There are barriers of mobility, digital exclusion and bureaucratic complexity that become insurmountable for an 80-year-old person who has lost just about everything they ever had, including their family.
I speak as one who has spent considerable time examining the collapse of health systems under the pressure of conflict. I want to underline this point with some force: older people have healthcare needs that are complex, chronic and ongoing. They need orthopaedic care. Many old people will struggle to get about at all; being in a warzone, under attack, makes that even more difficult. They also need cardiac monitoring and management of long-term conditions, such as diabetes—I am a recipient of management for that—and respiratory disease, hypertension and dementia. Those are not luxuries; they are the basic requirements of survival.
When a conflict destroys a hospital, a medical centre or a GP surgery; when it displaces a medical team; or when it cuts off a supply chain of medicines, it is the older people who suffer first and most. Long-term conditions are worsened by food insecurity, income insecurity, and the pressures of displacement and living in conflict situations. There are no shops and only the smallest means of cooking—it may be only a wee Calor gas thing, or even only a wood fire. The waiting lists that I have seen grow to crisis point here in Northern Ireland even in peacetime are as nothing compared with what older people face when the infrastructure of healthcare is obliterated by war.
Let us look at some of the harrowing theatres of war across the world. In Lebanon, older people face compounding risks from the escalation of hostilities, rising displacement, economic collapse and pressure on a weakened health system. A 2025 HelpAge assessment of 670 older women and men across five regions of Lebanon found that they were frequently excluded from assistance and recovery planning because they are at an age, they are probably still in the danger zones and little or no effort is made to help them. Some 61% received no humanitarian aid after the conflict and 39% reported being completely left out of the response, even during active hostilities. Only 12% of those who received aid said that it met their needs. Many have been unwilling or unable to leave their homes despite evacuation orders, while those who have fled found shelters that were poorly equipped for mobility, care and dignity, all three of which are so important.
Lebanon illustrates a wider failure. Aid might be provided, but if it is not designed around older people’s access needs, including their outreach, transport support, continuity of medication, assistive devices, home-based care and mental health support, it will not reach those most at risk. Who is at the back of the queue? It is the elderly.
Sudan is the second place that I will focus on. Today in business questions, Sudan was asked about; there was also a question about South Sudan in the questions about NATO, which the Secretary of State for Defence replied to earlier. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on Sudan—four weeks ago today, I think—in which I highlighted the issues in the country. What is happening there is absolutely tragic.
Since fighting erupted in April 2023, Sudan has seen repeated waves of displacement. Over 20 million people need health assistance and around 1 million of them are older people. Civilians face worsening conflict in the Kordofan region and risk escalating violence, confinement and starvation. UN figures provide an evidential base, showing that older men and women each make up about 4% of the population living in displacement camps, while around 3% live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.
Older people remain one of the least supported groups in Sudan. Human rights monitors report that they are often left out of aid programmes, especially in remote areas. It is a massive task to get aid to remote areas; I understand that. But some consideration must be given to it. At the end of my speech, I will set out some ideas, which I hope the Minister will give me some encouragement about.
Due to limited mobility, many older people struggle to flee explosions or attacks. I am 71. I cannot run a marathon any more; I could probably walk it, but I could not run it. Older people who are on mobility aids cannot walk or run at any speed whatever, so they cannot get away from the destruction coming their way. Older people also face high rates of depression and post-traumatic stress. As we get older—maybe you and I both recognise this particular trait, Mr Betts—things may worry us more than they did when we were younger. I say that in jest, but the fact is that older people sometimes dwell on things longer than they should.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member should not take my views for granted in this sort of debate—he can speak for himself, I am sure.
Jim Shannon
I speak for myself, but I think you are not too far off my years, Mr Betts, although I know that I am older than you.
In Sudan, the health sector has been destroyed and medicines are in short supply. Even those with manageable health conditions are at grave risk. In parts of Darfur, dozens of older people are among those who have died of hunger in recent months, after armed groups blocked food deliveries. Who cannot get to the aid centres or food centres, because of their disabilities or their particular needs? Older people.
Why is that allowed to happen? It is because older people are invisible in the data. We often come back to data when it comes to debates—especially health debates, but perhaps debates on anything—because data collection and analysis fail to capture the realities of older people’s lives, with data collection often stopping before people are 60. If someone is over 60, their time in this world, according to those who collect data, is limited.
Where older people’s data is included in data collection, they are often lumped together as a single group—those over 60—but that obscures diversity and hinders effective policy making. Evidence shows that age inclusion specialists can change humanitarian assistance by improving assessments, data collection, training and programme design. To give just one example, the data collection tools used by HelpAge Ethiopia showed that there were six times more older people in one region of Tigray than had been previously thought. The data had not been there before so the number of older people had been unknown.
In Venezuela, age inclusion specialists supported humanitarian actors through adjusted food basket guidance to better meet nutritional needs. They use the data for the betterment of services. Unfortunately, there has been a double earthquake in Venezuela and many people are missing—the country is dealing with some incredible problems.
A 2025 systematic review found that the barriers to age-inclusive healthcare include inaccessible health services, shortage of medication and equipment, limited geriatric expertise, age discrimination, low mobility and dependence on others—more often than not, elderly people do depend on others. Funding reform is desperately needed. A 2025 analysis by HelpAge found that older people are rarely named in humanitarian funding databases. How can we deliver enough aid, medication, food and support to elderly people if we do not know how many there are? In funding databases, only 6.5% of descriptions and 0.1% of project titles mention older people.
I must raise the question—you would expect me to, Mr Betts, because I always do—of freedom of religion or belief. It is intrinsic to this debate in ways that are not always acknowledged. In many conflict zones, such as in Myanmar, Nigeria, Syria and Ethiopia, older people are targeted not merely because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they are the custodians of their communities’ faith and culture. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I share this concern, and I look forward to her contribution.
As custodians, older people hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity. They are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community, and they are targeted because of that. They are driven from their homes because of their faith and denied the right to practice a faith that has sustained them across a lifetime. That is not simply a humanitarian failure; it is a moral outrage. Does the Minister agree that the protection of older people in conflict zones must explicitly include the protection of their right to freedom of religion or belief? I know the Minister’s answer to that, but perhaps we could have it on the record in Hansard.
I do not want to be churlish about the progress that has been made in international humanitarian law. There are frameworks and conventions, as well as the “Sphere Handbook” and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s work on inclusion, but let me be direct in a respectful way. The gap between the frameworks that exist on paper and the reality experienced by an 80-year-old woman sheltering in a basement in Kharkiv or a 75-year-old pastor driven from his church in Kaduna state in Nigeria is vast and unconscionable.
I have a number of questions for the Minister—seven, to be precise. We need to make humanitarian aid age-inclusive by default. Will the Minister commit to requiring UK-funded programmes to explicitly and systemically identify and reach older people, including those living alone, those with disabilities and chronic illness, and those unable to travel to distribution points?
To protect older people’s health, care and wellbeing, will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office prioritise continuity of medication, accessible health services, assistive devices, safe evacuation, accessible shelters, home-based care, if possible, and mental health support in active conflicts? Will the Government support universal social pensions, inclusive cash assistance and shock-responsive systems that enable older people to meet their own priorities with dignity? That will ensure age-inclusive access to cash and social protection.
Will the Department include older women in protection and its responses? Pre-existing patterns of discrimination are exacerbated during conflict, and extreme levels of violence against women and girls are a recurring theme. Older women are particularly at risk due to their age, gender, disability, caring responsibilities, widowhood or financial dependence. The UK international strategic framework on women and girls fails to consider how older women are affected, but there must be a focus on older women in particular. Will the Government ensure that its implementation includes explicit reference to older women’s humanitarian protection and safeguarding, and programmes to tackle gender-based violence through a life course approach? Russian army personnel have carried out horrendous sexual attacks on girls as young as eight and women as old as 80. We need to protect women of all ages.
We must count older people properly. Will the Minister require age, sex and disability to be included in disaggregated data, including specific age cohorts over 60? The age of 60 is where it seems to stop. If someone is over 60, we do not know about them for the purposes of all humanitarian assistance that the UK Government provide or support.
We must recognise older people as rights holders. Will the UK support the creation of a UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise the agency and contributions of older people and to facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building and monitoring, and local decision making?
Last, there must be engagement with devolved Administrations. Will the Minister engage directly with the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where we have hard-won knowledge of what conflict does to older people across generations, so that the lived experience of communities like mine can inform and enrich our international humanitarian policy?
I opened my speech with Margaret, so I will close it with Margaret. She once told me something that I cannot forget—that the worst thing about conflict is not the noise of it but the silence that comes after, when the world moves on and forgets that you are still carrying all that pain, memory and trauma. The older people of Ukraine, Sudan, Lebanon, the Sahel and every conflict zone across the world are still carrying that. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—these great four nations together as one—has both the capacity and the moral duty to ensure that they are not forgotten.
I commend this debate to the House. I thank Members for turning up, and I look forward to their contributions, particularly those of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Minister. I look forward to engagement with the Minister and to ensuring that older people in conflict are not forgotten about. There are ways of doing it better; let us start now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. I also wish his mother a very happy birthday for next Tuesday.
In many areas of deep conflict, the population rarely reaches our definition of older people. In Gaza, life expectancy has plummeted from 73 years to just 40.5 years. In Sudan, life expectancy is 66 years, and in Nigeria and Chad, it is 55 years. Compare those numbers with the UK life expectancy of 81.3 years or the life expectancy in Japan of 84.7 years. It is a privilege that our nation is safe, secure and conflict-free. Those figures show that conflict shortens lives by decades through poor access to healthcare and pharmaceuticals; disability, disruption and displacement; prevalence of disease and hastened frailty; and an environment of climate change, floods and famine.
Gender-based violence scars the lives of its survivors. I am so proud that our Foreign Secretary has rightly placed tackling the prevalence of the use of gender-based violence as a weapon of war at the heart of her work. Access to healthcare, an issue that I particularly look at in my work in the House, is significantly reduced, with the targeting of health facilities and health professionals now central in many conflicts. We have seen that in Gaza and in Sudan. Health professionals working there run these risks in the work that they do and because they are targeted by weapons. That breaks the rules of just wars, but these wars, of course, are never just.
We have also seen the shrinking capacity of healthcare against the increased demand, whether from the wounds of war or the poor mental health sustained from the sharp rise of sexual violence against women. As a result, the ability to access healthcare is reduced, and that, of course, will always impact older people the most. Often in war, we look at the wounds and we understand why, but it is the chronic conditions—the cancers, the diabetes and other illnesses—that often get forgotten; it is the drugs not getting through, the treatments not available, the clinicians simply diverted to acute care. Our hearts beat when we know that a child has been rescued or a life has been saved, but although the life of an older person is of equal value, often the resources are not there to save or sustain that life.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is often the elderly who stay behind in conflict zones because they cannot move—they cannot be displaced, and they stay in those areas. We have seen that in Ukraine and in many other areas. Our research shows that moving an elderly person has other impacts; it can cause much confusion and have a real impact on mental wellbeing. We need to take on board why so many older people die in conflict; it is because they are in the direct firing line, or because the facilities and infrastructure that keep them going are removed.
This is not just about healthcare. It is about social care and the social infrastructure when family is no longer available to provide support. State provision can be disrupted, and pensions no longer available. Food supplies are diverted into emergency and humanitarian aid. It is so important that we put older people at the front of all agendas. I say that as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people; I take this matter very seriously.
Now, with severe cuts to international aid, a humanitarian response is more challenging. I urge the Government to return to 0.7% as a matter of urgency and to provide leadership once again, to ensure that we can provide aid. Not everyone will be able to receive that, but we should provide it to as many people as possible. Older lives matter, too.
When infrastructure breaks down, resilience plummets and that is particularly stark among older people. The Government must be mindful of that when appraising their priorities. Without financial resilience, even the basics become barriers, especially for women in conflict zones. Aid must ensure provision of food, care, medicines and support. It needs to be a lifeline.
This is not just about the physical impact of destitution and the health consequences. The psychological trauma must be recognised, too. Elders play such a pivotal role in communities and families. If their resilience is broken, so is that of their societies. In many societies to this day, women are at particular risk of violence and abuse, including sexual violence. It has been a taboo subject, not least among the older generation, yet it is so traumatic. Last Ukraine day, an event was held in my constituency where I heard from a Ukrainian woman and saw a film about the sexual violence being perpetrated against women in Ukraine, and the horrors and the scars that it has left them with. They did not speak, because of the shame it brought them and the trauma that they were going through, but, when they started to share their stories, it brought healing between them.
Without the proper support and psychological care wrapped around individuals, that healing does not come. That is why I am so proud that our Foreign Secretary has recognised that and has put resources into it, particularly in the Sudan region. We need to make sure that women there access the support.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important speech, particularly on women in Ukraine who have suffered sexual violence during war. Does she agree that having proper support for those women, and an ability to record what they have experienced, is important, not just to support them, but to make sure that when the war in Ukraine ends, justice, as much as it can be done, is done for those people?
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, as it is so important to make a catalogue of war crimes. Whether they are committed against the elderly, or they consist of any other form of violence, including sexual violence, it is crucial that we keep good records so that we can hold perpetrators to account when the opportunity arises.
We know that if older people do not get the right nutrition, it has a massive impact on their ability to function. They can have greater episodes of confusion, making life much more challenging; they can become frailer; and they can rapidly lose their mobility, meaning that they have more complex needs. Good distribution of humanitarian aid is vital for the vulnerable, and we must always ensure that we factor in access to targeted support. It is not only about ensuring that people have the ability to reach that food; it must also be prepared for them in the right way.
We have been talking about some of the challenges that we have seen in Sudan as of late. It is a horrendous and complex war, so I am glad that it was discussed at the NATO summit recently and remains at the forefront of our Government’s mind. It is very much a forgotten war in so many respects. Evidence has also shown that the elderly in Sudan have been in the direct line of violence. It is important that we do not forget that either.
Older people—not least women—play a crucial role in the home and in the community, which often ripples out far beyond. Often, they are the ones who build the bridges, build the civil society, create the pathways to peace and organise communities at their most challenged. It is often the older women who can use their wisdom to bring co-ordination and build a way to the future. Indeed, I have been inspired by many older women leaders who have led the charge out of conflict, into a more resilient future.
However, we must also recognise that there are significant challenges. First, what are the Government doing to provide better protections for older people and their rights? We in the all-party parliamentary group undertook an inquiry into the human rights of older people, which looked at the frameworks and mechanisms that we can deploy to enhance and protect those rights, and to ensure that people can uphold them.
The work of the UN convention on the rights of older people has been inspiring, and it very much follows the lines along which other rights have been established, including the rights of the child or disabled people, to ensure that the protected characteristic of older people is upheld. Of course, it falls on the Foreign Office to advance that work and ensure that the UK plays a full role. We must bring our experience into that space so that older people’s identity can be seen, and so that their needs, in particular, can be supported. I ask the minister: what exactly are we doing to lead that work? Will the UK adopt the UN convention, once it has been established, to ensure that women, men and older people across the piece have their value recognised and their rights upheld?
Having a rights-based framework will move the agenda; it will enable us to focus on that protected characteristic—for example, age-inclusive specialists can help to reprioritise the humanitarian response, particularly in health or care. We must also ensure that we have good data to accompany that work, so that we know exactly how to focus our humanitarian response. Of course, when it comes to healthcare insurance, we can then ensure that pharmaceuticals and equipment are available in conflict areas to meet the needs of the demographic that we are debating today. When only 0.1% of humanitarian funding databases mention older people, we know we have a problem.
Can the Minister assure me that the Foreign Office will write older people into all its work, and will spread that good practice to agencies and other nations? Will the Government ensure that their humanitarian response is always age-inclusive, with an understanding of the risks that older people face when social infrastructure is destroyed by conflict? Will they also ensure that distribution is targeted to reach elderly people who have both chronic and acute health needs, wherever that focus is required?
Will the Government promote opportunities for social protections, such as social security and pensions, among older people in conflict zones to ensure that they can access the resources that they need? Of course, it is important in many countries, as it is in this one, that people can use more traditional ways to access those services. Will the Government ensure that they crunch the numbers for conflict areas and use the data to design humanitarian responses, recognising the prevalence of older people and the focus that they need?
Finally, I again make the point that the pivotal game changer for the issue is to have a UN convention on the rights of older people. That is about giving agency to older people in conflict zones, to better facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building, monitoring and decision taking. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and to contributions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I trust that we can rebuild our humanitarian response with good data, programmes and rights to support older people in conflict zones.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench spokespeople. They are entitled to speak for at least 10 minutes each, but given that we are not particularly time-constrained, I will leave it with them to make a judgment on that.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate to shine a light on an important but often overlooked issue. It is strange that many of the voices who mourn Britain’s declining influence are the first to say that we should spend nothing on issues beyond our own shores, and that the 0.7% commitment to development spending was a national indulgence that we can no longer afford. However, our influence never relied on hard power alone. Our leverage in the world comes from working with others and leading by example.
That is what internationalism means, and that is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the commitment to international aid is not merely sentimental, but fundamental and strategic. It rests on the simple principle of equality: that we help those who need help most. I will not create a league table of suffering, but some groups bear a heavier burden in humanitarian crises. Older people, especially those who are disabled, are almost always among the most affected. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 75% of those who died were over 60, despite older people making up only 16% of the local population. When the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami struck in 2011, 56% of those who lost their lives were aged 65 or over.
The world today is less stable than it has been in a generation. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights found that since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, older people have accounted for almost half of civilian deaths, where age could be verified. Older people, especially older women, remain at disproportionate risk, particularly in frontline areas.
Given that we know all that, it is extraordinary that the FCDO confirmed cuts to precisely the funds that support the most vulnerable groups in humanitarian responses. The International Development Committee found that FCDO equality impact assessments expect ODA reductions to programmes with a strong focus on equalities to be severe. The Committee also heard that work on disability and inclusion in South Sudan specifically will cease altogether, which will have a direct impact on elderly people.
UN figures show that more than 46% of people aged 60 or over live with a disability, and more than 250 million older people worldwide experience moderate to severe disability. In the UK, the House of Commons Library’s analysis shows that disability prevalence rises from 23% among working-age adults in the UK to 45% among adults over the state pension age, and 58% among those aged 80 and over.
Therefore, when disability inclusion funding is cut in a humanitarian response, older people will be hit twice over. It is not an unfortunate side effect; it is a foreseeable and measurable consequence. I want to press the Government on the false choice they keep presenting between defence and development, particularly in the context of Ukraine. Official development assistance budgets are part of defending Ukraine. For example, they partly fund accessible bomb shelters and healthcare adaptions for people with mobility needs or age-related conditions. If we are serious about supporting Ukraine, are the lives of its oldest citizens not part of that commitment?
Liberal Democrats reject the idea that we must choose. We have set out how defence spending can rise to 2.5% of GDP and beyond, through mechanisms such as defence bonds and a higher digital services tax on the largest technology firms—that is without hollowing out our aid budget. We advocate for the immediate restoration of ODA to 0.5% of gross national income, with a clear roadmap back to 0.7%.
The American example in this is not one to follow. USAID has been gutted by an Administration that treats development spending as something somehow unpatriotic. Within the older age group, the situation of women reveals a heightened danger. Amnesty International’s submission to the UN independent expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons documents this starkly. In north-east Nigeria, older women displaced by Boko Haram faced particularly severe discrimination and invisibility. They were often unsuccessful when they tried to petition simply to be added to food distribution lists. In Ukraine, women’s pensions are on average 30% lower than men’s, which is a consequence of shorter careers and interrupted employment caused by caregiving responsibilities. Older women also experience higher rates of disabling conditions than men of the same age, such as arthritis, osteoporosis and frailty.
As a result, older women are disproportionately exposed to poverty when displaced. The social role played by women as caregivers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), means that if they suffer, the impact is felt by the whole extended family. If they are left without income, accessible health care or a place in the food queue, the people who depend on their care feel it also. If the Government want to talk about return on investment in their development spending, this is exactly where that return is the greatest. Supporting older women is not a niche ask; it is a multiplier for entire households and communities.
I am speaking for the Liberal Democrats, but of course it is not just us. Amnesty International has set out practical and deliverable recommendations. We must disaggregate humanitarian data by age, gender and disability, so that we can see who is being missed out. We must ensure that older people are not systematically excluded from livelihood and cash assistance programmes on the discriminatory assumption that they cannot work. The humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and people with disabilities, developed by the sector’s own age and disability inclusion consortium, already exist and are freely available. Will the Minister confirm whether the FCDO is using them, and if it is not, why not?
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that this Government do not need new evidence to act; they need to start listening to the evidence that they already have. They need to listen to their own equality impact assessments rather than commissioning them and then quietly setting them aside, as has happened all too often in previous rounds of cuts. They need to make use of the evidence-based inclusion standards that the humanitarian sector has already built, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel—or, indeed, ignoring them altogether. They also need to restore ODA, first to 0.5% of GNI, but with a published roadmap back to 0.7%, so that the targeted programmes reaching older people, and older women in particular, are not the first thing to be sacrificed when budgets tighten. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate—the last debate of his that I contributed to was a few weeks ago on stoma care, when we managed to get some rather interesting entries into Hansard on the names that people give to their stomas, some of them quite inappropriate.
An interesting point from that debate, which connects through to this issue, is the way conditions affect older people in different ways. Translating the very specific care needs that older people with stomas have, for example, into the context of a war zone or refugee camp gives an example of how that suffering would be greatened. As always, through referencing his constituent Margaret, the hon. Member brings to life the fact that, while we often talk in broad terms about statistics and facts in these debates, each of those represents a person with their own story to tell and their own suffering.
I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and for her long-standing commitment. I have been in a number of debates where she has spoken, and while I have a different view from her on aid spending and I support the Government’s position, I recognise that she has long-standing and very sincerely held views on this subject. Debates such as this are where those views can be exchanged, and she has remained consistent in her views and advocated for them over time.
I shall break the jolly consensus just to respond to one little point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), brought forward the idea that we can use defence bonds as a magic answer for defence spending, and that that would avoid having to make any cuts whatsoever to the aid budget and get us back up to 0.7% without worrying. Borrowing costs are at their highest levels in decades, and the bond market is not a great place at the moment—and bonds still have to be paid back. We have not yet seen any understanding from the Liberal Democrats about how those bonds would be paid back, and how those ever-increasing borrowing costs would be factored in. The solution is not as simple as taking out a few extra bonds and then all will be fine with the international aid budget.
John Milne
There is no easy fix, that is for sure, but the loans are not coming from the bond markets; they are coming from British people. We are not imposing on or demanding on the bond market. That is the difference. Such bonds have been used successfully in the past.
Mr Snowden
I hold Government bonds myself—as I am sure many people do—so I should probably declare an interest. As we know, the interest rate that all bonds are generally driven by is the headline interest rate and the bond markets overall. Otherwise, the Government would just borrow from the public every single time. It is not that simple, and there are knock-on effects of doing that. There is a reason why premium bonds are capped —because they are moving people’s money out of taxable savings into non-taxable savings, which hits the Treasury somewhere else. The issue is not as straightforward as it is presented.
To get to the actual subject, it is evident that we are currently living in a more dangerous world than at any time in our recent past. Humanitarian crises in Africa are exacerbated by the actions of Governments; there is war in the middle east, with the terrorist regime in Tehran hellbent on causing chaos and instability; and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine signalled the end of the post-war peace dividend and brought the realities of war to Europe once again.
Evidence shows that conflict disproportionately affects older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford has highlighted. Almost half the civilian deaths in the conflict in Ukraine are persons older than 60, despite that demographic constituting about one quarter of the population. Older people are more likely to remain in conflict zones because they have strong ties to their homes, lands and territories, or because they are physically more limited. With that in mind, we must seek to ensure that our overseas aid is targeted at those who need it most, with budgets properly scrutinised and value for money sought in every penny spent.
Although many will want to discuss the size of the budget, it is equally important that we consider reforming the existing budget and improving the way it is spent. How can we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—for our national security, prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients abroad? With approximately 1.9 million pensioners living in the UK in relative poverty, we owe it to them to ensure that the money we send abroad is money well spent. That is why, throughout this debate, we must ask ourselves the best way to deliver for the needs of older people. We also must deliver a message to older people, both at home and in conflict areas overseas, that we see them, we hear them and we are here for them when needed.
We have numerous reminders of older people’s vulnerabilities to conflict over recent years. In 2020, elderly Armenians who stayed in Nagorno-Karabakh were subject to summary executions. Indeed, older people made up more than half of all Armenian civilian deaths. We saw that trend again in Myanmar: older Rohingya who stayed in the face of advances were killed and tortured, and some people indicate that the highest rates of Rohingya deaths are among people aged 50 and over.
It is no surprise, though it is never any less shocking, to see the suffering that Putin’s illegal invasion has caused to older Ukrainians. As I said, Ukrainians over 60 make up only 25% of their country’s population, yet they account for nearly half of civilian deaths and more than a third of injuries in frontline communities. The UN refugee agency polled older Ukrainians who remained in or near Russian-occupied areas last year and found that many stayed because they lacked an alternative. Indeed, 20% of respondents said that they would not evacuate because they felt helpless and did not know where to get the help they needed. Many felt that they would have nothing left if they evacuated.
There is an opportunity to think outside the box on how we assist older people in conflict areas. For example, we know that many older people’s finances prevent them from evacuating. Ukraine and Poland have innovated and agreed a mechanism to allow refugees access to their pensions. Is the Minister discussing similar proposals with counterparts in war-torn countries elsewhere in the world where that could possibly be replicated?
Many older people cited poor health as reasons for not evacuating their homes. After all, older displaced Ukrainians are more likely to report difficulties in accessing healthcare. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is working with our humanitarian partners to make it clear to older people who want to evacuate how they can access that help. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that internally displaced peoples are able to return home when appropriate, rather than being forced to seek refuge in another country?
Displaced older people in Sudan report difficulties in accessing information on essential services. Many older Syrians remained in war-torn areas in order to continue accessing healthcare. Some older Syrians are now returning to those same war-torn areas in search of more affordable and accessible healthcare. With that in mind, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that best practice on healthcare is shared?
Of course, evacuating older people from conflict zones is only the first step. Those people can be vulnerable at every stage. Many older people are not mobile enough to reach official displacement camps. Some stop at unofficial locations, which are often overcrowded and have inadequate access to essentials. Some older people become separated from their families while evacuating, and they are vulnerable, particularly those with dementia, to becoming lost in institutional systems. Some evacuated older people struggle to register their presence at displacement camps. They often lack official documents, and registration points can be inaccessible. As a result, they may miss out on aid distribution and medical care.
The international landscape is, sadly, defined by conflict and instability. Older people in conflict-threatened zones continue to be vulnerable. Problems accessing help, healthcare and finances persist. The Government have an opportunity to support older people affected by conflict. That will involve working with our partners to find new solutions and address the specific needs that older people have, as part of a wider programme of meaningful reform.
I hope the Minister will explain how his Department is meeting the realities of our most dangerous world. I look forward to his response to my questions and the very detailed requests—as we would expect—from the hon. Member for Strangford.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. As if the House needed any more confirmation that he comes from good stock, I wish his mother a very happy birthday for next week. I think anyone reaching their 90s is a great achievement, and it is no surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman’s mum will be reaching that great milestone in age.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution. Having worked with her over many years, I know how much she cares about these issues. She has always been steadfast and utterly consistent in her views about supporting older people, not just in the UK, but internationally.
As the Minister with responsibility for multilateral affairs, I often speak in international fora about peace building and conflict resolution, and I often talk about Northern Ireland. It is sometimes forgotten that we have had conflict on our own shores that lasted for decades. Much the peace building that followed was from women, and from older people who lived through the entire period of the troubles. We forget that we have much to celebrate about the work of the peace process in Northern Ireland; but we must also recognise the impact that the conflict has had and still has on many constituents and people across Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to Margaret, the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am sure that must have been a fascinating conversation for him as her local MP.
The Foreign Secretary has been clear that tackling humanitarian need and reducing the violence caused by conflict and atrocities is a key priority for the Foreign Office. We are committed to delivering the vision for a reformed humanitarian system, set out by the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to build a system that is focused on the most vulnerable and prioritises the views of communities affected by crisis. The needs of older people must be central to that work.
When we think about the human cost of war, we often think first of children separated from their families, women and girls facing violence, or communities forced from their homes—and while we should continue to do so, we should also recognise that older people are among those hardest hit by conflict, yet they remain largely invisible. At the same time, older people are not one homogeneous group. Age alone does not make someone vulnerable. Many continue to lead, care for others and support their communities, even in the most difficult of circumstances. That is why we must take three steps to address the humanitarian impact of conflict on older people.
First, we must recognise that older people can be disproportionately affected by conflict. Today, more than 100 armed conflicts are taking place around the world, from Sudan and Ukraine to Myanmar and Gaza. The experiences of older women and men are too often missing from discussions, data and humanitarian planning. Many are unable to flee when violence erupts. Older people are also often hardest hit in a crisis. Many depend on regular medicines and healthcare, as has been mentioned, so disruptions can quickly become life-threatening.
Poor health, disability, limited mobility or caring responsibilities can leave older people trapped in conflict zones long after others have escaped. Others become separated from family members and the support networks on which they rely. Humanitarian assistance is frequently designed without adequately considering those specific needs, which creates barriers to getting food, water and basic services.
Older people also face greater risk of neglect, abuse and exclusion, with older women in particular often facing additional and intersecting challenges linked to age, disability and gender. That is why the UK consistently presses all parties to conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and allow rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access to all those in need, including older people. But that alone is not enough, as has been mentioned by Members across the House today.
We must work proactively to understand and integrate the needs and perspectives of older people into humanitarian responses. For many years, humanitarian actors have highlighted the lack of systematic data on the needs and experiences of older people during crises. Without data, needs are often overlooked; without visibility, resources are not allocated; and without representation, policies and programmes risk being developed without the participation of those affected.
That is why the UK is taking practical action through our humanitarian programmes and partnerships in order to build the evidence base to inform effective responses. Members from across the House have today raised this point about data, and I hope to provide an answer on that particular concern. We work with UN agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and other non-governmental organisations to support humanitarian responses that take account of age, disability and other barriers people may face.
We also encourage partners to collect and use age as aggregated data, so that assistance is informed by evidence and reaches those who might otherwise be invisible in humanitarian responses. This is not simply a technical point. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, it helps to determine whether food distribution points are accessible, whether healthcare reaches those with chronic conditions, whether shelters are sustainable, and whether protection services are identifying those most at risk. In Gaza, for example, the UK has funded assistive products for people injured in conflicts. Each kit can provide practical, lifechanging support for hundreds of people. For an older person, it can be the difference between being left behind and reaching safety, medical care and essential services.
We cannot just look through the lens of vulnerability and must recognise older people across the world as leaders, caregivers and contributors to community resilience. Many continue to care for grandchildren, support neighbours, maintain community networks and help others to navigate crises. Humanitarian and conflict responses are more effective when older persons are involved in decisions that affect their life and the lives of those in their broader community. Their knowledge and networks can make responses more effective, more trusted and more sustainable.
Let me try to answer some of the more specific points that have been raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central was right to raise Sudan; it is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our age. The Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister when he was the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Cameron of the other place have spent the last four years leading the work internationally—multilaterally and bilaterally—to ensure that Sudan remains high on the agenda.
In February of this year, when the UK Government chaired the Security Council, the Foreign Secretary chaired a special session focusing purely on Sudan. The Foreign Secretary gave a statement on the Floor of the House today updating us on the NATO summit, the issues around Sudan and the fact that the UK is leading the conversation on trying to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We always need to do more to highlight and broadcast what is taking place in Sudan, because it is truly important to find a resolution that brings about a ceasefire and takes us back to peaceful stability.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a particular point around older women being overlooked in conflict, and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about women in relation to the atrocity of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. I reassure the House that we support women-led and women’s rights projects and organisations, recognising that they are often the most trusted actors in helping to identify the victims of sexual violence and the risks specifically faced by older women, including widows, carers, women with disabilities and women separated from family support.
As the special envoy on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as well as in my role as Minister, I have a wider women, peace and security commitment that focuses on not only younger women and girls but older women as well, and making sure that there is support for survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made the point about evidence gathering, justice and retribution for these heinous crimes of sexual violence in conflict. We work as a UK Government to ensure that evidence is gathered and that, in the near future, when we hopefully have peace in Ukraine, Sudan and other conflicts, there is accountability for people who have committed acts of sexual violence in the name of conflict.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response so far. I mentioned those of an older generation who are the custodians of the community’s faith and culture. They are the ones who hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity; they are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community. Can the Minister give us some reassurance in relation to those older women and men who are targeted because of their religious belief—some of them sexually as well? Will the Government help them to retain and protect their religious beliefs?
Chris Elmore
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, he knows that I have a personal commitment to working with our freedom of religion or belief envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). He never shies away from the particular point the hon. Gentleman is raising and nor will I as Minister.
On the wider point that the hon. Gentleman raises about supporting and working with older people on peacebuilding and resolution, which my hon Friend the Member for York Central also raised, I reassure him and the House that the Department has an instinctive view that locally led, inclusive peacebuilding needs to include elders—the older women and men who understand many of the challenges in the community. We need that support because they bring trust and knowledge. They are leaders in their communities, whether they are of any faith or none. It is extremely important that older people are part of that peacebuilding resolution. In many cases, where older people are engaged in peacebuilding, the process actually lasts longer. That is particularly true of women; when women take part in peacebuilding, there is much evidence to show that many years of peace follow. It is extremely important to the Government that that work continues.
A number of Members mentioned Ukraine, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I reassure the House that the budgets for overseas development and for additional support through the 100-year partnership have been protected, specifically for Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. I reiterate that point because it is extremely important. The House will know that events in Ukraine disproportionately affect older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. There is some concerning data that shows disproportionate suffering among civilian casualties, with older people accounting for more than 45% of civilian deaths. Those are real people, not just statistics, and they show the incredible impact that conflict has on older people across Ukraine.
We do specific pieces of work to support older people. A number of colleagues raised the issue of assistance and pensions; let me to try to offer some clarity on that. Through the UK Government’s partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF, we are supporting the Government of Ukraine in relation to strengthening national social protection systems. We are also trying to make sure that there is more specific support for winter cash assistance and that older people have more support during power outages. The work that the Government do is focused in many of the areas where there is an adverse impact on older people.
There has been much conversation about data. I reassure the House that FCDO partners should use disaggregated data, including on sex, age and disability, to understand who is being reached and, crucially, who is missing out on support. I wanted to put that on the record because part of the reason for that expectation is that when considering age-related barriers, we are talking about the risks linked to disability, or based on gender, poverty, health, isolation, displacement and other forms of marginalisation. That expectation is very much set out by the Department.
In my time as a Minister, I have never been given a list of questions in advance by the Member leading the debate. I have tried to answer each of them and not miss anything. I have a couple of points to make. One is about the violence against women and girls response. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that older women are a part of that work, as I said earlier in my speech. To make that very clear point, it is not about forgetting women who are victims of sexual violence; it is about trying to be as inclusive as we can to offer support to victims in recovery, and to try to prevent sexual violence in conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central and the hon. Member for Strangford raised the UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise older people and their legacies. I can confirm, as I have done in response to parliamentary questions and to various colleagues who have written to me during my time in this role, that we are supportive of a UN convention on older persons. There are many existing support mechanisms for older people in the UN multilateral system, but that does not mean that some form of convention should not come through. The negotiations are ongoing, but when it happens, although I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee in the sense of who the Minister will be, there is genuine support across HMG for the work of that resolution in supporting older people.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful because this is such a fundamental issue that I have focused on for some time. Will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to expedite the process, and what kind of timescale are we looking at to see that convention in place?
Chris Elmore
On the timescale, I should warn my hon. Friend that the process has been a matter of debate for some years. She probably knows far more about it than I do, so I cannot stand here and say it will be done by x date. What I can say is that we are a part of those conversations. Our contribution is to try to make sure that as the work that might lead to a convention on older people is brought together, we are not stepping away from it. We are a part of the work that is ongoing.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful, not least because of the work done in Wales around the rights of older people and having the commission there. Will the Minister ensure that our Government take a real leadership role in moving that work forward and ensuring that other nations contribute and participate, and that we get the rights established? Ultimately, we know that it could be really transformative for establishing a rights-based system for older people across the globe.
Chris Elmore
To reassure my hon. Friend, I frequently meet other Ministers in the UN space in New York, and also in Geneva at the Human Rights Council, where the issues are discussed, and I think there is a willingness for the process to succeed. That work is very much part of the conversation and we are there in the room for much of it. I give her that reassurance.
As the global population ages and as conflicts and humanitarian crises continue around the world, the number of older people affected is likely to increase. That is why the UK is working with humanitarian partners to ensure that older people are not overlooked. At the heart of the debate is a simple principle: no person should become invisible because of their age, and no society should overlook the dignity, rights and contributions of those who have spent a lifetime contributing to their communities. The United Kingdom will continue to champion the protection, inclusion and participation of older people in humanitarian action around the world.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon, who has a couple of minutes to wind up.
Jim Shannon
I thank everyone for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend—she is my friend—the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and the work she does on the APPG for ageing and older people. She does a lot—only in these debates do we realise just how much she does—so I thank her for that. She referred to how conflict shortens lives. She also referred to frailty, gender-based violence and the complex needs that people have. Older people are the ones who usually lose out in conflict. She referred to resilience, food, care and support and also to the sexual violence in Ukraine, and indeed across the world. She mentioned how better distribution of international aid is vital. I thank her for outlining very clearly the way forward and for all that she does.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) referred in an intervention to the need to have data to focus on the issue so that we can know just how many people are suffering. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for his contribution. We do need to look at international aid; the question of where that money comes from cannot be ignored. He referred to how older people suffer more in a humanitarian crisis, and challenged the Government to address the issue of international aid. He also referred to how women and girls suffer disproportionately in many of these crises. Data is needed.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), made an incredible contribution, as he always does. He reminded us of Armenia. Sometimes we forget about places in the world and it is good to remember because it keeps our minds focused on the subject of this debate. Older people were murdered because they were still there, and because they were surplus to the enemy’s requirements. He also referred to the executions in Myanmar; we need to remember that as well. Across the world, in many places, those over 60 are tortured and then murdered. He also mentioned the pension issue in Poland for people from Ukraine. To be fair to the Minister, he gave a decent response in relation to it. The shadow Minister also referred to displaced people in Sudan and Syria who cannot access healthcare.
I thank the Minister for his contribution, as always. I never doubted—I say this very respectfully and sincerely—that the Minister would respond to us and give us encouragement. I always give the Minister my points in advance. That is the way I do things, because I would rather have a decent response and not be attacking anybody. That is just me—that is the way I am. I thank him very much for responding on the pension issue and giving us some encouragement around how that will work.
The Minister also referred to not forgetting about any victims, which is really important, and to making sure that we get the data and the willingness to succeed. I noted some of his phrases. He referred to the lack of data and how the Government are responding to ensure that they can collect such data better. He also noted how older people are adversely affected in conflict and the focus on medical aid, and on retention of support for disabilities and trauma. It worries me greatly when I hear that enemies, strong men—they are monsters—use their strength to abuse women and girls. The Minister has grasped that.
The Minister also referred to peacebuilding and revitalisation in Northern Ireland—I know he is acknowledging Northern Ireland; that is not lost on me—and that was primarily driven by women. Very often that is the case. Their persuasion of men, although not always to the fore, is recognised very much by the Minister. I thank him for all his answers to the questions, his commitment and the commitment of the special envoy, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who does a grand job. I thank you, Mr Betts, for your chairship. I thank the civil servants who organised the debate, and the Department civil servants, who keep the Minister right—well done to them. I thank everyone for their contributions. They are much appreciated. Today we start something, and look to help those older people who are often forgotten, though today in this Chamber they were not.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.
Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
We have quite a lot of members of the public in the Gallery; it is lovely to have you. You have been through the experiences and are affected by the topic of the debate. However, as is convention, I encourage Members to speak into the Chamber and through me as Chair and not turn round to the Gallery. That is not to be impolite; it is a convention of this Chamber, so please understand that.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. MPs from across the House are here today to mark the anniversary of the death of my constituent Dr Susan Michaelis, founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time at very short notice in the parliamentary schedule for this debate. Unfortunately, that short notice has prevented many MPs who would have liked to have spoken today from joining us. Unfortunately, that was a necessity.
Today is a sad moment because Susan is no longer with us, but it is also a time to celebrate what she has achieved. Susan was a remarkable woman. She was warm but incredibly stoic. At no time was that clearer than on her last trip to Parliament in the summer of last year, oxygen tank in tow. Determined but evidently suffering, Susan stood for 22 minutes in a silent vigil outside No. 10 Downing Street with fellow campaigners and lobular ladies around her. We all understood that Susan was in her last days or weeks, so to watch her husband, campaigners and fellow lobular ladies rallying around her, literally supporting her, was a sight to behold.
In her haste to deliver her petition to No. 10 that day, Susan had forgotten her ID. She was distraught. All that effort would be wasted, as the rules were clear: no ID, no entry. But that, of course, was not Susan’s way. Susan, with our support, blagged her way past security. Susan was never one to take no for an answer. Not long after, Susan died—just days after her meeting with the then Health Secretary.
It might seem odd to say, given that I met Susan when she was already very ill with the lobular cancer that she was campaigning to prevent, but I feel that I met her in her prime. It was immediately clear to me that this was a person with an unparalleled commitment to her cause. Despite her illness, Susan never looked for the sympathy vote. She was always calm and matter of fact. She led by example. It is a reminder that her cause, while not yet complete, is a worthy one, and with a champion to match.
Susan’s first campaign was in fact not lobular breast cancer; it was aviation safety. She flew commercial aircraft in the Australian outback, one of the few female pilots to take up this challenge, and piloted the first all-female crewed Qantas flight. This was before contaminated cabin air ended her flying career in 1997. She spent the following decades building the evidence base on aircraft cabin air contamination, with a PhD, an MSc, peer-reviewed research and a leading role in her home country’s Senate inquiry into cabin air quality. Her focus in her final years was on lobular breast cancer, and it is on this endeavour that I was pleased to support her as her local MP.
Susan was diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer in 2013. It was a one millimetre mark—no lump, no pain. Two mammograms and two ultrasounds told her that there was nothing to worry about. An MRI scan found 2.5 cm and surgery then confirmed 7 cm. That gap between what standard imaging can see and what is actually there is the heart of why lobular breast cancer needs its own research programme. It behaves differently. It is missed because it is different and it is currently treated exactly the same as the most common form of the disease, because the underlying biology has never been properly funded.
In May 2023, with her husband Tristan, Susan launched the Lobular Moon Shot Project in Horsham. She built it from nothing into a campaign that has cross-party support in this House, a partnership with the Manchester Breast Centre and a research plan costing £20 million over five years.
In June 2025, Susan travelled to Manchester to help launch the scientific programme that she had spent years fighting for. It was a programme that, of course, she knew she would never benefit from herself. Nine days later, Susan died. She never received a reply from No. 10 and never got a chance to make her case to the then Health Secretary. So today, I will again make the case to the Government on behalf of Susan, the 22 patients a day who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer, and the 463 MPs who have publicly supported her campaign so far, which I believe is the highest number of MPs to publicly support any individual campaign.
Every day, 22 women in this country are told that they have lobular breast cancer—that is over 8,000 a year. This is not a rare disease; in fact, it is the sixth most prevalent cancer in women.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He has been very vocal on this subject matter and we all support him. I apologise to him, to you, Mrs Hobhouse, and to the ladies in the Public Gallery today, because I have an early flight home so I cannot be here to make a longer contribution to the debate.
This debate is not just about the women the hon. Gentleman has referred to. Alongside Northern Ireland’s Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, I have met women in Northern Ireland who have lobular cancer. Some of them will not have a long time in this world and I was very moved by what they told us. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time for the Minister and the Government to ensure that the small amount of money that is needed to help to alleviate the health issues for women with lobular breast cancer is made available, as well as the money that is needed for research? If that happens, the ladies who are here today and my constituents in Northern Ireland can get the help they need.
John Milne
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and I very much agree. I also note that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is potentially our next Prime Minister, comes from Manchester, has visited the clinic and is already familiar with the campaign, so I am hopeful.
As I was saying, lobular breast cancer is the sixth most prevalent cancer in women. That puts it ahead of melanoma cancer, ovarian cancer, brain cancer, kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer combined. Incredibly, there is still no specific treatment.
Breast cancer as a whole costs this country over £3 billion a year. It takes around 11,200 lives annually, or the lives of roughly 31 women a day. Many of these are lobular cases, yet lobular breast cancer receives none of the targeted treatment that drives down mortality for other forms of this disease. Every woman who is diagnosed with lobular breast cancer is given the same drugs, the same protocols and the same guidelines as someone with an entirely different cancer. That is because the basic biology of lobular has never been established.
It is this gap that the Lobular Moon Shot Project exists to close. We need £20 million over five years, which is just £4 million a year to crack the biology of this disease. That is not speculative research; it is a certain outcome. Other researchers in the UK and around the world can then take things forward to find targeted treatments, because this is a world problem and the world can find the solutions. Of course, there are many demands on Government funding and the national budget is always under pressure, but I think we would be hard pushed to find another project with such a relatively small need for such a big reward. This is a precise unfunded gap, and we already have a delivery partner in the shape of the Manchester Breast Centre, which is ready to begin this work.
I will conclude by quoting Susan’s husband, Tristan, who is sitting behind me in the Gallery—it is strange that I have to speak these words rather than him, but that is the procedure of the House. He said:
“The last overseas holiday Susan and I took together was to Easter Island, one of the most remote places on earth. Like so many people, I had always imagined the island’s famous stone statues—the moai—looking out across the Pacific Ocean. But when we arrived, we discovered something rather beautiful. Most of them face inland. We were told that they were positioned that way because they watch over their people rather than looking out to sea. Whether that is history, tradition or simply one interpretation, it touched us both deeply.
Before we left, Susan found a beautifully carved wooden replica of one of the moai. We brought it home together, and today it sits in our house. Every time I look at it, I think of Susan. It reminds me that although she is no longer physically with me, her love, her courage and everything she stood for remain with me every single day. In my heart, I like to think she is still watching over me, just as those remarkable statues have watched over their people for generations.
If Susan could stand in Westminster Hall today, she would not ask Members to remember her. She would instead ask you to remember the thousands of women diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer every year who still have no treatments designed specifically for their disease. That is why this debate matters. That is why the Lobular Moon Shot project matters. And that is why Susan’s legacy deserves not only our admiration, but our action.
As Susan’s husband, I know she would have been deeply humbled that Members from every corner of this House have come together today to honour her life. She never sought recognition for herself. She simply wanted to leave the world a little safer, a little fairer and a little kinder than she found it. My sincere hope is that history will remember this debate not simply as a tribute to one remarkable woman, but as the day Parliament chose to transform admiration into action for future generations of women diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. That would have been the greatest tribute we could ever have paid to Dr Susan Michaelis.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 3.58 pm. I am currently not imposing a time limit, but I suggest that Members keep their speeches to a maximum of eight minutes especially if they intervene on others.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my friend the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for the initiative to lead this debate. Although she is not present in the debate, I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is a great campaigner on this issue. That really demonstrates the cross-party support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.
I also pay tribute to one of my constituents, Katie Swinburne. She is a mother of three and a very popular local schoolteacher, and she has lobular breast cancer. I first became aware of Katie through Dehenna Davison, who was the MP for Bishop Auckland before me. She did fantastic work supporting Katie as her constituent at the time, and anybody who knew my predecessor knows that she was a formidable single-issue campaigner. When I was elected, Katie asked to see me, and I was delighted to pick up the baton and support my constituent. In fact, this Saturday she is organising a fair and a tabletop sale in her village of Hilton to raise funds for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.
Through Katie, I was privileged to be introduced to Dr Susan Michaelis and her husband Tristan Loraine. Susan was visiting Katie in her home in County Durham. Through the Lobular Moon Shot Project, I have observed a real sisterhood and solidarity among those who are campaigning together.
I have never been in the position of being told that I have terminal cancer, and I find it difficult to imagine, but I can imagine people facing that have a choice about how they spend their remaining years, months and weeks on this Earth. Do they spend it on holiday? Do they look to enjoy all of life’s riches and pleasures? Susan chose to spend it in the service of others, campaigning for the science to be done to develop a cure for lobular breast cancer. She founded the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Not only is that a campaign for better cancer research funding, but it has also developed a real solidarity among people suffering from this type of cancer. I was privileged to meet Susan and her husband and to learn about the Lobular Moon Shot campaign.
As the hon. Member for Horsham said, this was not Susan’s first experience of campaigning. She had success campaigning on aviation safety, in particular on jet fuel and pollution in cabins, a potential cause of her own cancer.
The Lobular Moon Shot Project has been successful so far in raising significant funds, which have been used to develop funding proposals for early work. As we have heard, there is an opportunity to fund significant research at Manchester University. I declare an interest as an alumnus of Manchester.
I was privileged to meet the campaigners and the former Health Secretary. That led to a commitment from the Government to issue a highlight notice, which demonstrates the importance that they place on this type of research. I respect the Government’s approach, which has been to say that while we all want to find a cure and there is a need to do the scientific research, it is important to do that through a peer-reviewed process and through competitive funding rounds, because that is what produces the best science. It is, however, vital that those funding rounds go ahead and that the funding is made available to meet the need.
As we have heard already, the unique aspect of lobular breast cancer is that it is very difficult to discover. It often goes undetected, and only 28% of cases are detected at stage one, compared with 38% of non-lobular breast cancers. There are 8,000 cases a year. The campaign is calling for the discovery science to be done. I appreciate that the Minister today is answering on behalf of the Department for Health and Social Care, but we also need engagement with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, because we need bespoke funding pools from UK Research and Innovation that universities such as Manchester can tap into, to make sure that this vital work gets done. I was privileged to meet Professor Rob Clarke from Manchester and hear about his work.
I urge the Minister to take up this issue. Two years on since I was elected, and three or four years on from when I first heard about this campaign, progress has been made, but it is too slow. So many people are in situations that I cannot even imagine, and they are giving their time to campaign for something so important, not even necessarily for themselves, but for the generations that come after them. I implore the Government to listen to their calls and to do what we can to make sure that the correct funding pools are available so that we can, once and for all, get this research done and answer their pleas.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. When I met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team in April, their determination to improve outcomes for patients was unmistakeable.
The debate is also an opportunity to remember Dr Susan Michaelis on the first anniversary of her passing. After being diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer in 2011, Susan devoted her final years to advancing research into this awful disease. In 2023, she founded the Lobular Moon Shot Project, and in December 2024, many colleagues and I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate to echo the project’s call for greater investment in lobular breast cancer research. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will be able to give us some idea of whether the Government listened to us all those months ago and whether they are listening today, because very little appears to have changed.
Invasive lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, with between 7,500 and 8,000 people diagnosed every year in the UK. That is around 22 women every day. Despite accounting for around one in seven breast cancer diagnoses, this form of the disease remains under-researched with no specifically designed treatment. As a result, patients are often treated with therapies known to be less effective for lobular tumours, increasing the risk of metastatic disease, greater toxicity and poorer outcomes.
That is not inevitable. With targeted research, outcomes can improve. The Lobular Moon Shot Project is calling for £20 million over five years to fund lobular-specific research. In the grand scheme of things, £20 million over five years is not a lot of money, and that investment would deepen understanding of the disease, support the development of targeted therapies, and improve diagnosis and treatment for thousands of patients. Without it, progress will remain far too slow.
The project estimates that 3.75 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer over the next decade, making need for action so very urgent. The investment also represents good value. Modelling by the Lobular Moon Shot Project suggests that preventing or delaying metastasis in even a relatively small number of patients would more than offset the proposed £20 million investment through reduced treatment costs. I know that many across the cancer community are eagerly awaiting the Government’s workforce plan. Can the Minister update the House on when it might be published?
In closing, I urge the Government to support the Lobular Moon Shot Project and commit £20 million to improve research, diagnosis and treatment for invasive lobular breast cancer. I also once again pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, without whose tireless campaigning, I doubt we would be here today debating this issue or pressing for the change that so many patients and families deserve.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this hugely important debate and for his powerful speech.
Just a few weeks ago, I stood outside Downing Street alongside women living with invasive lobular breast cancer, their families and campaigners for the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s 22-minute silence. Those 22 minutes represented the 22 women who lose their lives to lobular breast cancer every day. It was a deeply moving experience. Standing in silence with women who are living with the disease alongside those who have lost loved ones brought home why today’s debate really matters. They were not asking for sympathy; they were asking to be seen. They were asking for better research, earlier diagnosis and better outcomes for women diagnosed in the future.
Today, I want to share the story of my constituent, Trish. She has kindly given me permission to share her story because she hopes that by doing so, another woman may recognise the signs of lobular breast cancer sooner. Trish did everything that we ask women to do. Between 2014 and 2025, she attended six mammograms—six opportunities for cancer to be found, and six occasions when she believed that if something was wrong, it would be detected. But none of those mammograms picked up any signs.
Like many women, Trish believed that cancer meant finding a lump. It was not a lump that led to her diagnosis; it was a shadow. After getting out of the shower one morning, while putting her hair up, she noticed a shadow underneath her breast. She took a photograph and could clearly see dimpling in her skin. Thankfully, her GP listened and referred her urgently under the two-week-wait pathway. I place on the record my thanks to that GP, because despite there being no obvious lump, they recognised that something was not right.
At the breast clinic, Trish underwent mammograms, ultrasounds and biopsies. Initially, she was reassured that there was no lump to feel. She was then told that there was a small area of concern. The plan was for a lumpectomy and a short course of radiotherapy, and she recalls being told that she would likely be back at work in a month. She underwent an MRI, which is when everything changed. It showed that the tumour measured approximately 72 millimetres. Following surgery, it was confirmed to be 75 millimetres. Trish’s treatment changed completely: she needed a mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, followed by 15 rounds of radiotherapy. She is currently undergoing 10 years of hormone therapy. She certainly was not back at work after a month.
Trish’s experience raises important questions. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, yet many women have never even heard of it. Unlike the breast cancers many of us are more familiar with, lobular breast cancer often does not form a distinct lump. Instead, it grows in strand-like tumours, making it much harder to detect on mammograms and feel during examination. That is why women with lobular breast cancer are so often diagnosed later, when tumours are much larger and treatment becomes far more extensive. For Trish, six mammograms over more than a decade failed to detect her cancer.
That is why the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project matters. Campaigners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for research into lobular breast cancer that reflects the scale of the challenge. They are asking for earlier diagnosis, better understanding of how the disease behaves, improved imaging and more effective treatments. Above all, they are asking that women with lobular breast cancer are no longer overlooked because their cancer behaves differently. Awareness of lobular breast cancer must improve. For many years, the message has quite rightly been, “Check for lumps,” but breast cancer is not always a lump; women also need to know about dimpling, puckering, changes in breast shape, thickening of the breast tissue and changes to the skin. As Trish said to me,
“You should know your breasts as well as you know your face.”
I welcome the engagement that Ministers have already had with campaigners and researchers, and I hope that today’s debate marks another step forward.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and other colleagues are making some very powerful points today. Is she going to come on to the important issue of medical training and education for doctors and other medical professionals, and the possible benefits of greater public awareness? The Department of Health and Social Care has historically done very important work leading on public awareness campaigns on illnesses and other issues in the health world. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to highlight that as well.
Sarah Hall
Trish is a phenomenal campaigner—a lot like Susan—and she wants to work together to create an awareness campaign so that women understand that there is a difference between types of breast cancer. We are looking to establish a support group for women who have lobular breast cancer; that is in the works. On training, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: recognition and training forms part of research, understanding and detection—what it is and what causes it—but also what we need to do in the training required by people in the profession.
I hope that the Government will continue working with researchers, clinicians and the Lobular Moon Shot Project to improve understanding of lobular breast cancer, support further research and ensure that women receive the earliest and most accurate diagnosis possible. Behind every statistic is someone like Trish, a woman who did everything that she was supposed to and who wants her experience to help somebody else. Next week, many of the women I stood with outside Downing Street will gather once again. My hope is that one day, they will no longer need to, and that through better research, greater awareness and earlier diagnosis, fewer women will hear the words that Trish heard. I hope that colleagues from across will continue to stand with those women until that becomes a reality.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I encourage Members to speak into their microphones; it is quite difficult even for me to hear the debate, so it must be even more difficult for the people sitting in the Public Gallery. Please direct your remarks into the Chamber. I know there is a great temptation to direct it to our guests—we know they are here and we acknowledge them. I ask Members to speak up and speak into their microphones so that everybody can hear.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for the reminder. I very sincerely thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for leading the effort to secure this debate and for his incredibly powerful speech. His recounting of Susan’s final visit to Parliament and the words of her husband, Tristan, was very moving indeed. He has done Susan, her loved ones and the thousands of supporters of her campaign proud today. I too welcome Tristan, Susan’s aunt Sally and her cousin Andrew to Parliament. Tristan kindly shared with us the briefing that he prepared for Members ahead of the debate. I know that many of us have drawn on it this afternoon and absorbed it.
Susan had just one symptom: one tiny millimetre-long mark on her breast. She had no pain and no lump—none of the warning signs that many of us have been told to look out for. But that tiny mark concealed something a lot bigger: 7 cm of invasive lobular breast cancer. There is something profoundly cruel about that. The disease was growing silently while every reassuring scan understandably gave Susan and her family reason to believe that everything was fine.
As we heard, incredibly, nine days before she passed away, Susan launched the scientific programme for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Even while facing the unimaginable, she was looking beyond herself and fighting to ensure that other families might one day be spared what hers endured. I have no doubt that she would be immensely proud to see her family and her Member of Parliament continuing that work in her memory.
Since I was elected, 14 of my constituents have contacted me about breast cancer. They felt compelled to write to me because this disease touched their lives or the lives of somebody they love. One in particular contacted me in every way she could to command my attention and make sure I signed up to this campaign. If my two years in this House have taught me anything, it is that for every person who writes to us, hundreds more are affected but, for whatever reason, do not write in.
I would be surprised if there is anybody in this Chamber whose life has not been shaped in some way by cancer. My family unexpectedly lost my wonderful aunt during the pandemic, after her cancer was spotted too late. It reaches into every family, every community and every constituency. I am sure most of us know somebody whose chair at the dinner table is empty because of cancer, or someone who is still sitting there because it was found in time. That is the difference that early diagnosis makes. A cancer diagnosis is literally a race against time. Every second of delay gives cancer a head start that it really does not need.
Our NHS can only fight with the tools that we give it. If those tools cannot see a disease or cannot treat it properly, we cannot expect patients to get the outcomes that they deserve. Invasive lobular breast cancer accounts for about 15% of all breast cancer diagnoses, and yet there are still no treatments development specifically for it. Across the world, 1,000 people are diagnosed with the disease every single day, and for them this debate is about far more than statistics; it is about whether future patients hear the words, “We found it early,” rather than, “If only we had got it sooner.” Cancer is a race against time, and every missed diagnosis gives the disease a head start.
As we have heard, the Lobular Moon Shot Project seeks just £20 million over five years to better understand the biology of the disease and develop targeted treatments. It has already secured the support of hundreds of Members of this House. That level of cross-party support reflects a belief that patients with this horrendous disease deserve to be seen and understood, and to benefit from research that gives them the same hope as every other breast cancer patient. That was Dr Susan Michaelis’s mission, and that was her call to us. As the hon. Member for Horsham said, we have a window of opportunity to do that, and I hope that every possible effort is made to seize it.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Like others, I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for introducing the debate and for how he did it.
I want to make a prediction. I think the remaining speakers are going to say that they support this campaign and that they want to see a difference, and they will acknowledge the gap that needs to be filled. Our challenge is making that pledge and those words real. I have been in debates like this before—we all agree that something has to be done, yet we come back and speak about it again and again. Perhaps, if we all carry this campaign forward, this is the time to actually make it happen.
Sam Rushworth
My hon. Friend just made an excellent point. We know the research questions that need to be answered. Does he agree that it should not be beyond UKRI to put out a specific call asking people, through a competitive peer review process, to answer those questions?
Dr Arthur
Exactly. In a former life, I was an academic. UKRI does at times engage with academics to fine-tune such questions. UKRI provides funding to universities, if needed, to bring the very best people to the UK either temporarily or on longer-term contracts to help to make a difference in the UK. Those things are perhaps all part of the solution. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I am grateful for the opportunity to support this vital debate. It shines much-needed light on a disease that is still under-resourced, as has been said, and it honours the legacy of a woman who dedicated her final years to fighting it: the late Susan Michaelis. I was not fortunate enough to meet her but, as a result of the excellent introduction of the hon. Member for Horsham, I feel I know a little bit about her and her character. I am grateful for that introduction.
Lobular breast cancer, despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, has historically received a mere 1% of breast cancer research funding. Susan refused to accept that disparity and the Lobular Moon Shot Project is her legacy—but it has to be more than a project. Hopefully, progress will be her real legacy. The project demands better treatment for every woman who receives a lobular breast cancer diagnosis. That is why all of us are in the Chamber for this debate.
I recently received an incredibly powerful letter from a leading oncologist, Dr Michie. She is based in Edinburgh, treats patients in Scotland and works closely with the community of those with lobular breast cancer. She expressed deep professional frustration on behalf of her patients, explicitly stating that lobular breast cancer has been neglected for too long. People who meet patients day in, day out and week in, week out still have a real frustration about the lack of progress. Dr Michie’s letter also highlighted the fact that lobular breast cancer is different from the more common ductal types of breast cancer, with an entirely unique tumour biology, different responses to drug treatments, and distinct and highly challenging patterns of spread.
The different response to drug treatments is really important because, in the absence of proper treatments, women are often faced with a drug that was not actually designed for the condition that they have. Yet clinical trials rarely even present separate response data for lobular cases: today a grand total of zero lobular-specific clinical trials are actively recruiting patients in the UK. That should shame us, based on what we have discussed already in this debate, and on the scale and breadth of the campaign that has been run.
Additionally, the incidence of lobular breast cancer is rising rapidly, climbing by nearly 3% annually. Because it does not form the typical lump, it is notoriously difficult to detect using classical imaging. That is 3% annual growth in diagnoses of this condition—I know that, as a Government, we are really keen on growth but not that kind. To fix it, we need to improve our pre-clinical understanding of how and why the disease spreads. I believe that the work package plan of the Lobular Moon Shot Project is precisely the kind of ambitious and collaborative plan that can help us to improve patient outcomes across the board. If people do not believe that, let us have a conversation about how it can be improved.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The hon. Member speaks about the value of research. Some 50 years ago this year, my cousin was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had three years. She left five children under the age of 10. Yesterday I met Lesley, who was diagnosed 20 years ago. Lesley is well. She is still receiving treatment, but that demonstrates the value of the advances that research can make. Does the hon. Member agree that it is absolutely vital that we invest in this area?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. Yesterday I met with activists from Cancer Research UK just outside Parliament, before they came in. Cancer Research UK had around 100 activists there who had been touched by cancer, in all its shapes and forms, and although that big room was full of people who were full of energy, they were just a tiny part of the footprint of cancer and its impacts across the UK—absolutely tip-of-the-iceberg stuff.
We have to acknowledge the emotional impact on individuals and families, but also the economic impact. We should never be ashamed of talking about that. There is also the economic impact of bringing the best research to the UK so that our laboratories, universities and hospitals can work on this issues. All that is a push in the right direction.
The Government and the bio-sciences sector are notoriously slow-moving. We need to expedite work in this area; a dedicated funding commitment from the Government to launch the Moon Shot Project would help do that. When we talk about housing, we talk about being builders not blockers. Maybe we should use the same narrative and energy for this matter.
On a related note, while the fight for a new funding model is critical, we cannot afford to overlook the importance of immediate and compassionate support for people who have the condition. In my constituency we are incredibly fortunate to have the House of Hope, a wonderful charity that provides a safe space for women navigating a breast cancer diagnosis and for their families, including their husbands and children. As I understand it, they plan to start a support group to focus specifically on lobular breast cancer, which will meet for the first time on 11 August. I wish them well in that endeavour and I am wearing my House of Hope badge today. They actually gave me three badges with different designs, but I went for the glittery one because we all need a bit of glitter in our lives sometimes.
I have always found the House of Hope to be an incredibly inspiring and hospitable place. I encourage any woman with a diagnosis in Edinburgh and the Lothians or further afield to check out the services it provides. I am sure the Minister would be welcome to visit any time and I can guarantee him it will be cooler in Edinburgh than it is in London right now.
I return to Susan and her project. A clear and fundamental shift is needed in how we fund and prioritise research into this condition. I strongly encourage the Minister to actively engage with the project’s demands, meet with the campaign and agree a plan going forward for how we can address their concerns. As has been said already, 22 women will be diagnosed with this condition today and we need to give them and their families hope.
I checked Hansard this morning: in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, lobular breast cancer was mentioned 10 times. Just two years into the current Parliament, we have mentioned it 56 times. We need to stop talking about it in this place and actually start getting stuff done.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for leading this important debate on Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.
On the first anniversary of her death, I want to pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis and her tireless campaigning. Today’s debate celebrates a legacy that continues to inspire researchers, clinicians, patients and parliamentarians alike. While the debate is about her story with lobular breast cancer, I would like to focus on what made her Susan. Although Susan was known for her campaigning on lobular breast cancer, she was so much more than that—something her loved ones, who are here today, know all too well.
Susan was an Australian who grew up in Melbourne before moving to the UK in 2003. As a child, she had dreams of becoming a pilot, but because of the lack of women in the industry at the time she settled on working in the travel industry instead. However, she soon realised that she really did want to become a pilot, so she set about becoming a qualified commercial pilot. Her dream came true and she trailblazed as the co-pilot on the first all-female crewed flight for the Qantas Group.
Susan also obtained a PhD at the University of New South Wales in Sydney in 2010. Her thesis was titled “Health and Flight Safety Implications from Exposure to Contaminated Air in Aircraft”. She was a researcher who devoted her career to improving public health and aviation safety, and her contributions towards aircraft cabin air contamination remain recognised today.
In 2007, Susan and her husband raised concerns with the world’s leading jet engine oil manufacturers about crew and passenger exposure to engine oil decomposition products. While most ignored the issue, the French company NYCO investigated and confirmed that the fuel additives affected gene expression. As a result, NYCO developed a new, less hazardous jet engine oil, NYCO 940 SE. The oil received SAE approval in 2023 and US military approval for use in all NATO aircrafts in 2024.
However, her legacy undoubtedly remains the Lobular Moon Shot Project and the change that she championed while knowing that she would not live to reap the benefits. Susan was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in 2013 after a small 1 mm mark was noticed on her left breast. She had no lumps and had experienced no pain. Two mammograms and two ultrasound scans showed no cause for concern. However, an MRI scan suggested the presence of a 2.5 cm area of lobular breast cancer, which was later confirmed by a biopsy.
Susan underwent a double mastectomy, and post-operative pathology revealed that the cancer actually measured 7 cm. That was much larger than what had initially been detected and was missed entirely by mammograms and ultrasounds. Had Susan been given regular MRI scans in the last 10 years before her diagnosis, her lobular breast cancer would have been detected much earlier. For all cancers, early diagnosis and effective treatment is essential to increase survival.
Susan’s story tragically highlights how those challenges continue to be experienced by the millions of patients living with lobular breast cancer. Current NHS imaging techniques can fail to detect the disease accurately, which often leads to diagnosis at a later and more advanced stage. Unlike other breast cancers, lobular breast cancer tends to spread out in straight lines rather than amassing to form a firm lump. A patient is more likely to have a thickened area of breast tissue as a symptom, rather than the expected lump. That is what makes lobular breast cancer so difficult to detect during a physical examination, and when using imaging scans, such as mammograms and ultrasounds.
Research indicates that MRIs, which can produce detailed images of the inside of the breast, offer improved detection and characterisation of lobular breast cancer. If Susan had been given a regular MRI scan in the 10 years prior to her diagnosis, there is a very real chance that her cancer would have been detected sooner. That would have reduced the risk of it metastasising and ultimately claiming her life. Susan also only received generic breast cancer treatments as there is currently no specialised treatment for lobular breast cancer. Susan underwent eight systemic treatments over the span of 12 years. That led to the lobular breast cancer spreading to her spine in 2021. A PET-CT scan was unable to detect the disease progression, but once again, it was detected on an MRI scan—something that is not available on the NHS.
Lobular breast cancer accounts for one in seven—or 15%—of all new breast cancer diagnoses. It is the second most common sub-type of breast cancer. There are approximately 8,400 lobular breast cancer diagnoses in the UK each year. That amounts to 22 people being diagnosed every single day. More women are impacted by lobular breast cancer than cancers of the kidney, brain, pancreas, liver or ovaries. The impact of any cancer for both the patient and their loved ones is always devastating, and lobular breast cancer is no exception. We must better our understanding of this disease to improve treatment and outcomes for all those affected. It is unacceptable that this cancer has no specific treatments and is treated in the same way as the more common types of invasive cancer.
The Lobular Moon Shot Project, created in May 2023 in Horsham by Susan alongside her husband, is striving to change that. The campaign is asking for the Government to invest £20 million over five years to understand the biology of the disease to enable targeted treatments. Alongside all my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I wholeheartedly support and will continue to support this very important project. The Liberal Democrats were the first major party to fully endorse this campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has written to both the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary on Susan’s behalf, and our Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has repeatedly raised this issue in the Chamber.
Support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project has grown to 465 Members of Parliament, making it the most widely supported health campaign in Parliament. On 15 July 2025, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that he had instructed his chief scientific adviser to plan a path forward to understand the biology behind this cancer to make a difference to those affected. One year on, and with a new Health Secretary, this research project has still not got the green light. We cannot allow this to fall through the cracks. I urge the Minister and all Members here today, regardless of their party, to continue to advocate on this issue.
Alongside supporting the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, the Liberal Democrats are clear: cancer must be a top priority for any Government, and the UK should be a global leader in cancer research and outcomes. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients would be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral. The Liberal Democrats would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment.
To end, I once again want to honour the legacy of Dr Susan Michaelis and her Lobular Moon Shot Project. The contributions made here today show the continuing impact of her legacy, which inspires me, and everyone in the room and beyond. I once again ask the Minister to play his part in ensuring that Susan’s legacy continues for her and all those who have been and continue to be impacted by lobular breast cancer. Will he today commit to finding the £20 million to fund the research so that more people survive lobular breast cancer?
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing today’s debate, and to the Members from across the House who have given their voice to this campaign over a number of years. It is entirely right that Parliament should pause today to consider not just the science, the policy and the funding, but the human reality that sits behind all three of those things.
Behind the words “lobular breast cancer” are people who knew something was wrong, but the system could not prove it. That is the point at the heart of today’s debate. This is not a call for special treatment or a demand that we place one cancer above another; it is a recognition that different cancers behave differently, present differently and may require different approaches if we are serious about improving outcomes.
Today, we are also remembering Dr Susan Michaelis. Many people in public life are described as courageous, but in Susan’s case that word feels insufficient. She was, as we have heard, a commercial pilot, a researcher, a campaigner, a wife and a woman whose instinct, when faced with injustice or uncertainty, was not to turn away from it but to investigate it. She had already devoted much of her professional life to public safety, particularly in the aviation sector. We have heard about how she challenged assumptions, gathered evidence and pursued truth in an area where the consequences mattered for passengers, crews and the wider public. In 2013, she received her devastating diagnosis of invasive lobular breast cancer. As we have heard today, her symptoms were not dramatic; they presented as just a tiny mark on her breast.
Two mammograms and two ultrasounds failed to identify the disease, and it was ultimately identified by an MRI scan. We have heard how that revealed what appeared to be a relatively small lesion of about inch that was later confirmed to be over 7 cm. That single account tells us why this debate continues to matter and shows the particular challenge of a cancer that can be harder to detect through standard imaging.
Remarkably, Susan did not live her final years in retreat from the world; she continued with her work and her research, and continued campaigning. As we have heard, nine days before her death, she travelled to Manchester to help launch the scientific programme for the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project, knowing full well that any breakthrough would come too late for her. That is an extraordinary act of generosity and a challenge to all of us in this place. If someone is living with advanced cancer and can spend her final days and the last of her strength ask for progress for others, surely it is our responsibility and Government to find the clarity and urgency to respond.
As we have heard, lobular breast cancer is not rare. It is the second most common type of breast cancer, accounting for around 15% of cases, but despite that it too often remains hidden in plain sight.
Seamus Logan
This is not a party-political issue; it is something the shadow Minister and the whole House can agree on. In 2022, the Scottish Government began the process of improving their imaging kits with the introduction of 3D mammography, which is a major step forward. Two months ago, the Scottish Parliament lodged a motion supporting the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project and called for the £20 million to be allocated. Does he agree that the breadth of support for this campaign—440 MPs now support it, including myself—is now irresistible, and that the Minister should award the funding?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Gentleman is right; there is collective support for doing more on this issue. That starts with getting the research right. Without the research, we do not know how to plan for the treatments of the future. I will move on to the other points, but he is also entirely right that this is not a party-political issue, but one that affects all of us and all of our constituents. We have to work with a sense of urgency around it.
As we have heard, the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project is looking for £20 million over five years to advance the understanding of invasive lobular breast cancer and to support better detection, treatment and surveillance. We cannot dispute that that is a significant sum, but we have to look at it in the context of national health spending and what cancer costs: the cost to families and patients and the cost to the NHS when it is detected late or treated inadequately. We have to bear those factors in mind.
We should also be clear about what research funding means in practice. It does not mean a guarantee of easy answers. Science does not work like that, but it does mean giving our best minds the chance to ask the right questions. It means building the evidence base and moving beyond a generic understanding of breast cancer and towards a more precise understanding of this specific disease. That is the direction of travel that we have seen over a number of years in modern healthcare. We have seen it in genomics and targeted therapies and we see it in the increasing recognition that treatment must be shaped by the biology of the disease and the needs of the patient. There is no reason that lobular breast cancer should be left behind in that progress.
There has been movement—it is right to acknowledge that. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has issued a highlight notice encouraging applications for research into lobular breast cancer; the Government have published their own national cancer plan; and the Health Bill speaks of research duties and innovation. Those are by no means meaningless, but they are not yet enough. That is why today’s debate must focus on delivery, so I ask the Minister whether the Government will set out a timeline to fund the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project. If the answer is yes, campaigners deserve to know how and through what mechanism that will happen. If the answer is no, they deserve an honest explanation. Is it a financial barrier? Is it a scientific one? Is it procedural? Are the Government waiting for further proposals, reviews or assessments? The people who have campaigned with such dignity on this issue should not be left trying to decode in silence.
I also ask the Minister to address the issue of guidance. Lobular breast cancer is referred to only in limited form in existing national breast cancer guidance, and campaigners have called for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to review whether the guidance properly reflects the disease. That guidance, of course, shapes clinical practice and influences what clinicians look for, what tests are considered and how treatment is approached. If the evidence is not yet strong enough to support separate recommendations, that should strengthen the case for targeted research, not weaken it. We cannot use the absence of evidence as a reason not to gather it. That would be a circular argument. The patients affected by this disease deserve much better.
There is also a wider lesson here about women’s health. Too often women’s symptoms have been dismissed as vague, complex or difficult to categorise. Too often women have had to become their own advocates at the very moment when they are frightened, unwell and least able to fight. One duty of a good health system is to reduce the burden on the patient and prove that they are worth listening to. Susan Michaelis understood that deeply. As we heard earlier, on 24 June last year, while on oxygen and clearly in pain, she stood outside Downing Street as part of a silent vigil representing the 22 people diagnosed every day with lobular breast cancer in the United Kingdom. She delivered a letter asking for help. Two weeks later she died wearing her Lobular Moon Shot Project T-shirt. That is an image that should stay with all of us today, not because policies should be made on emotion alone—clearly they should not. Policy has to be evidence-based, financially responsible and clinically sound. But should policy not be stripped of a moral seriousness, either. Evidence tells us what may work. Compassion reminds us why we keep working. Responsibility requires us to bring those two factors together.
The last Government invested in cancer research, including support for the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden biomedical research centre, along with wider work relevant to lobular breast cancer. In opposition we have continued to press the Government on the Moon Shot Project, including through the shadow health team and other colleagues. But this should not, as we have discussed, become a party political contest. Cancer does not observe party lines, and neither should our determination to improve the outcomes for patients.
The test for the Government is relatively simple. Can they turn sympathy into a plan? Can they gave campaigners a clear route forward? Can they match the scale of the problem with a response that is specific, funded and time-bound? What those affected by lobular breast cancer need is not another expression of admiration for their bravery and courage. They need progress: a system that sees their cancer sooner, treatments shaped by its biology, surveillance that reflects the risk of recurrence and spread, guidance that recognises the particular character of the disease and research funded at a level that gives discovery a fair chance.
Susan Michaelis gave the final chapter of her life to this cause. She did so not for herself, but for women she would never meet and families she would never know. That legacy is worthy of more than a mere tribute; it is worthy of action. I hope the Minister will leave this debate having listened carefully, but also prepared to act decisively. The Government should not only meet the campaigners, but set out the remaining barriers, publish a route to a decision and make clear whether they will fund the Moon Shot project. Dr Susan Michaelis spent her life making hidden risks visible; the task before us now is to ensure that lobular breast cancer is hidden no longer.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this vital debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for campaigning on this topic, following her own diagnosis of lobular breast cancer.
I add my tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, as today marks one year since she passed away from lobular breast cancer. As a founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, she campaigned tirelessly on behalf of women diagnosed with lobular breast cancer and raised awareness for the condition. I also pay tribute to members of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, including Susan’s husband, Tristan Loraine, for picking up the mantle, continuing the important work of the project and carrying Susan’s torch forward.
I recognise the number of charities that carry out important work in this area, such as Lobular Breast Cancer UK, Breast Cancer Now and Cancer Research UK, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who continue to provide support, many of whom we have heard from today.
Lobular breast cancer accounts for 15% of breast cancer cases. However, as we have heard, this form of cancer sadly goes undetected in too many women. We are determined to transform diagnosis and outcomes for patients. Earlier this year, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, who is the lead DHSC Minister on this issue—I am standing in for her today—and Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, met representatives of the Lobular Moon Shoot Project. Alongside Government research funders, they discussed the Lobular Moon Shot’s work, listened to the experiences of lobular breast cancer from those who attended, and discussed how to advance research in this vital area.
Following that meeting, last month Lord Vallance hosted a scientific roundtable that brought together a range of researchers, clinicians and industry representatives to identify opportunities to advance research and innovation. At that meeting, attendees agreed that one of the next steps should be to encourage collaborative research and funding applications across multiple existing schemes, including for basic discovery science. I would like to emphasise that Government research funders stand ready to support that work as it progresses.
We acknowledge and share the Lobular Moon Shoot Project’s ambition for researchers to take a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to addressing the unique challenges of lobular breast cancer. Government responsibility for delivering cancer research is shared between the Department of Health and Social Care, with research delivered by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with research delivered via UK Research and Innovation.
The Medical Research Council primarily supports the discovery sciences and fundamental biological research, which is the focus of the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Through MRC, UKRI has emphasised its commitment to supporting interdisciplinary team-based research across its funding schemes and highlighted support for collaborative activities to provide a platform on which to build a portfolio of research in this important area. NIHR’s research is complementary to the MRC’s focus, supporting the translation of discovery science into patient benefit.
Through the MRC and NIHR, we are already funding research into lobular breast cancer. For example, a breast cancer screening study is investigating whether a new, faster MRI scan could detect breast cancers earlier. The FAST—first post-contrast subtracted—MRI is a new type of scan that aims to detect cancers, including lobular breast cancer, that may not be routinely picked up by mammograms during a first screening visit. The £1.36 million study is jointly funded by the MRC and the NIHR. Furthermore, with a total investment of £32 million, the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre support lobular breast cancer by combining translational research, precision diagnostics and targeted clinical trials to develop and test tailored treatments.
Promising discoveries are being made. Scientists at the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research have recently discovered a drug, currently being tested in clinical trials for a rare blood cancer, that could also be used to treat lobular breast cancer. Researchers now hope to progress the drug to clinical trials for lobular breast cancer. More widely, we are supporting world-leading research and development to enable the prevention of cancer and to improve diagnosis, treatment and care for people affected by the conditions. Cancer is a major area of NIHR spending. Reflecting its high priority, the institute spent £141.6 million on it in 2024-25. Alongside that, UKRI invested £198 million in cancer research in the same year.
We are investing in the best science, which explores lobular breast cancer both in isolation and in conjunction with other cancers, to maximise the opportunity to share learning and identify possible breakthroughs. Historically, the breast cancer research community has categorised the field around signalling, pathway and molecular presentation on tumours. Rather than naming a particular cancer sub-type, therefore, grants within the MRC portfolio focus on the understanding of molecular mechanisms common to both lobular breast cancer and invasive breast cancer.
We know that more research is needed. That is why both the MRC and NIHR are committed to continuing to support the development of high-quality, fundable research proposals. There are a range of existing opportunities across funders that support this developing portfolio. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025 to signal to researchers our interest in funding research into this area.
Stephen Kinnock
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) was first.
Daniel Francis
I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing the debate. I have supported my constituent Emma Hunwick and her campaigning on this issue. It is the third time I have attended a debate on this subject in the two years I have been an MP. I hear what the Minister says about research, but I think what supporters want is assurance that we will not be having a similar conversation again next year. They want confidence that we will have made some progress in the next 12 months.
Stephen Kinnock
In a nutshell, what I am trying to lay out is that it is not an either/or question. There is a tremendous amount of work going on to research cancer, including lobular breast cancer, which is a vital subset of that work.
The challenge for us is the idea of ringfencing £20 million, because ringfencing is not the standard process. The standard process is to have applications that are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to the public and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality. If there is a difference of view in the Chamber today, it is whether we have an ecosystem of cutting-edge research, applications and competitive process, based on the principles I have just outlined, or a ringfenced fund.
I have to be absolutely clear and straight with my hon. Friend that currently the Government are not of the view that a ringfencing approach is the right way to go. The worry is that that approach could potentially cut across the ecosystem-based approach that we are seeking to nurture and foster, which we believe will deliver better outcomes in the end.
Helen Maguire
Thankfully, the Minister has clarified some of the issues that I was going to ask about. He says the Government are not necessarily looking to ringfence the £20 million, but are waiting for applications for research. The Lobular Moon Shot Project has already put forward some ideas on research. He has said that he stands ready to support the project, so I would just like some more specific detail. He says that we are waiting for applications for research, but does not what the Lobular Moon Shot Project has submitted or talked about fall within that?
Stephen Kinnock
As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately I am not the lead Minister on this issue, so I do not have the most up-to-date information on the proposal that has been submitted. If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will speak with the ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, and write to the hon. Lady on that subject, providing an update on exactly where the proposal is in terms of the overall process that we have. Have I understood her intervention correctly?
Dr Arthur
I appreciate that the Minister is substituting for another excellent Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson); I am sad that she is not here, because she is fantastic. We ringfence money for brain tumour research—I know that that community wants more money, so I am not saying it is the gold standard, but we have made that choice, because we recognised the public concern about brain tumours. There is also public concern about lobular breast cancer and the feeling that people who have it are being left behind. It is fantastic that we have better screening coming on board, but ultimately people need treatment if they are diagnosed during the screening process.
The Minister highlighted the fact that there is a competitive bidding process. Is it the case that the bids are not good enough? If that is the case, can we invest money to improve the quality of those bids? As I said earlier, we could bring in better staff, perhaps from overseas, or invest in PhD students to work in this area.
Stephen Kinnock
My understanding is that there are bids that are good enough and they are the ones that have attracted funding for research into lobular breast cancer. What I do not know at this moment is precisely where the live bids are and whether they are making the cut in terms of the quality that we are looking for. I will absolutely follow up with my ministerial colleague, and I will write to my hon. Friend on that point.
Sam Rushworth
I think there is a space between the two approaches. As wonderful as the Lobular Moon Shot Project is, I fully respect why the Government say that we cannot allow campaign groups to dictate which universities get x millions of pounds for particular projects, and I see the value of there being a peer-reviewed process through a competitive ecosystem. However, there is a space where we can go beyond a highlight notice, whereby the Government could specifically say, “We want research that will answer these specific sets of research questions.” I wonder whether that is something that he could take back to his colleagues for consideration.
Stephen Kinnock
I will absolutely take that suggestion back. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about having a specific call for proposals. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South and get back to him.
Our approach to funding research is through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals most likely to deliver real impact for patients are funded without imposing financial targets or limits. We also recognise that international research co-operation is fundamental to driving medical breakthroughs and saving lives. That is why the DHSC participates in and influences the EU cancer mission, which aims to improve the lives of more than 3 million people affected by cancer by 2030 through multi-country research calls and activities. For breast cancer, that includes a focus on driving screening innovation, including the MammoScreen project, supported by UKRI, which is developing safe, non-invasive, microwave-based imaging for more accurate screening.
The Government’s national cancer plan for England, published earlier this year, sets out our ambition to improve cancer outcomes and ensure that by 2035, three in four people diagnosed with cancer survive for five years or more. Research, innovation and earlier diagnosis are central to achieving that ambition. We know that too many women with lobular breast cancer face delays in diagnosis because it can be more difficult to detect. That is why the work being championed by the Lobular Moon Shot Project is so important.
The cancer plan recognises that improving outcomes depends on strengthening research, supporting innovation and bringing together researchers, clinicians, charities, industry and patients to tackle some of the biggest challenges in cancer care. That spirit of collaboration is exactly what we have seen through the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Through continued engagement with campaigners, researchers and patients, we want to support progress towards a better understanding of lobular breast cancer, and ultimately improvements in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for the women affected by it. More broadly, the plan is about improving not only clinical outcomes, but people’s experience of cancer care. Through more personalised support and better co-ordinated services, we want to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care and support throughout their cancer journey.
The ambition of the national cancer plan is clear: to combine the strengths of our NHS, our research community and our life sciences sector so that patients benefit from the very best cancer care. That includes people living with lobular breast cancer who deserve the same progress, hope and opportunity as every other cancer patient.
The DHSC was pleased to discuss the issue of NHS breast cancer screening at the petitions debate opened by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) last month. The NHS breast screening programme offers all women in England between the ages of 50 and their 71st birthday the opportunity to be screened every three years for breast cancer, to help detect abnormalities and intervene early to reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. In addition, some younger women at increased risk of breast cancer because of genetics or their family history are eligible for earlier, more frequent screening, sometimes using MRI rather than mammogram.
We are also investing in research to improve the early diagnosis of breast cancer through the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial, which is backed by £11 million in Government support via the NIHR. Almost 700,000 women from across the country will take part in the trial to test whether using AI to support radiologists increases the number of cancers detected in women taking part in the national breast cancer screening programme. The trial will evaluate multiple AI technologies to assist radiologists in screening mammograms for signs of cancer. It may enable one specialist to complete the process safely, freeing up hundreds of radiologists to tackle waiting lists and rising cancer rates.
My message to the research community is clear: research funding remains available, and that funding does not have a ceiling. We know that recent advances in technology and data science create a timely opportunity to accelerate progress. Our investment in research means that the UK is well positioned to lead research on this topic. We will continue to strongly encourage research applications. We stand ready to support the research community to develop and submit high-quality, ambitious proposals in remit for review.
Our belief is that that approach will maximise the opportunity of seeing major steps forward in delivering better outcomes for those with lobular breast cancer through research. I thank all hon. Members and you, Mrs Hobhouse, for your time today.
John Milne
I thank all hon. Members here present. Some really powerful points have been made. I particularly thank the Minister for his reply—I find it the most revealing reply of all that I have heard over the past year. Considering it is not even strictly his portfolio, I am very impressed. I hope that he or one of his colleagues will agree to follow up, because he has raised some very interesting points. I would like to consult with colleagues and follow up.
We are getting an understanding of the processes within Government for making these decisions. From the outside, it is very frustrating. I cannot tell when the Government are stalling or when they are really doing something. I mean that in general; I am not talking about this particular subject. I have had a number of meetings with completely different Departments this week, as it happens, with Ministers. It is very hard to tell when we are just being fobbed off and when we are actually on a path to a solution. I have been in politics only a couple of years; forgive my naivety.
I was very interested to hear what the Minister said and I felt he was more honest. I would really appreciate an opportunity to follow up either with him or his colleagues in the coming days.
Finally, I must pay tribute again to Dr Susan Michaelis for all her work. This day is of course the one-year anniversary of her death. I also pay tribute to all the lobular ladies, who are campaigning not just for themselves, but for everybody. This is a worldwide problem; it does not just affect us. I pay tribute to them all and I thank everyone today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Cabinet Office
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Can the Minister update us on what recent actions he has taken to co-ordinate the Government’s domestic policy on the war in the middle east?
Darren Jones
We have established a Cabinet Sub-Committee called the Middle East Response Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, which has met weekly. I, as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, have chaired senior ministerial groups underpinning that work to ensure we have a clear understanding of the impact of the conflict in the middle east on the UK domestic economy in relation to supply chains, the security of critical goods and the economic impact. That work is informing Government decisions to protect British citizens and the UK economy as best we can from that conflict.
[Official Report, 25 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 498.]
Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
We have established a Cabinet Sub-Committee called the Middle East Response Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, which has met regularly. I, as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, have chaired senior ministerial groups underpinning that work to ensure we have a clear understanding of the impact of the conflict in the middle east on the UK domestic economy in relation to supply chains, the security of critical goods and the economic impact. That work is informing Government decisions to protect British citizens and the UK economy as best we can from that conflict.
Business and Trade
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Tata Steel’s Steelpark in Wednesfield and manufacturers across Wolverhampton North East and the Black Country rely on resilient supply chains for steel. Will the Minister set out how today’s statement on increased quotas and steel under contract before 14 March will continue to back British-made steel production while giving downstream manufacturers the competitive certainty and confidence that they need?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in most areas allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel.
[Official Report, 25 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 537.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in several important categories allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
… I briefly want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) about polio. I reassure her that we are doing our utmost by investing £1.5 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030.
[Official Report, 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 68WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore):
Chris Elmore
… I briefly want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) about polio. I reassure her that we are doing our utmost by investing £1.25 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030.
Written Statements
UK Export Finance: Mandate
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Government are taking decisive action to strengthen the UK’s economic security and deliver growth in an increasingly contested and uncertain global economy.
As the UK’s export credit agency, UK Export Finance drives growth by helping businesses across the country win contracts overseas, expand into new markets, and sustain high-value jobs. It plays a central role in mobilising capital in support of the Government’s economic objectives. UKEF’s 2025-26 impact report shows that last year UKEF provided £11 billion of support, which supported up to 85,000 jobs across the UK. Over the last 5 years, UKEF has supported 330,000 UK jobs, unlocking £23 billion of GDP growth.
Export credit agencies in peer and competitor countries are moving quickly to support a broader range of trade and investment activity, providing their firms with a wider and deeper range of financing to compete internationally. UKEF must be similarly equipped to match this ambition. However, its current statutory framework is primarily focused on supporting exports and does not provide sufficient flexibility to support the full range of modern trade, investment and supply chain activity.
As part of its modern industrial strategy, the Government committed to reviewing UKEF’s mandate, with a view to establishing a wider trade and investment remit to drive growth across the eight growth sectors. Delivering this commitment is a key part of the Government plan for growth.
I am therefore announcing the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to modernise the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 and expand UKEF’s statutory powers, enabling it to operate as a more flexible, globally deployable financing instrument in support of UK prosperity.
The Government’s ambition is for UKEF to be able to support a broader range of international trade and investment activities, in order to support the UK economy, strengthen vulnerable supply chains and secure the UK’s economic resilience. The ambition includes:
Supporting UK firms who trade, invest and operate overseas;
Strengthening the UK’s economic security, including by facilitating the supply of critical goods into the UK;
Building investment partnerships overseas to mobilise finance flows into the UK.
These measures will enable UKEF to deploy its finance more strategically, so that it can build economic partnerships globally, support UK firms in internationalising, and strengthen supply chains in support of the UK’s economic security.
These changes will build on UKEF’s existing capabilities and expertise, while maintaining its robust control framework, which includes Treasury consent and parliamentary oversight.
[HCWS206]
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I have today laid before the House 13 additional documents within the scope of the 24 February 2026 Humble Address seeking all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001.
These documents confirm the arrangements for the appointment set out in the documents provided on 21 May 2026 but also provide some further detail, including confirmation that the British Trade International board was informed and Ministers were briefed on his preparation for the role, and details of his induction programme.
The 13 documents include:
extracts from BTI board papers;
further documents about the role, job title, and an update note for the responsible Minister.
plans for his induction programme and transition to the new role; and
press releases and media handling discussion.
The Government have now concluded all reasonable searches for material requested by Parliament. The focus of our work is now on supporting Thames Valley police with their investigation into possible misconduct in public office. If, in the course of this or other work, the Government find additional documents in scope of the Humble Address, these will be provided to Parliament in line with the established process.
I am conscious that the Business and Trade Committee is considering inquiring into the Government’s management of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor between 2001 and 2011. I am due to discuss with the Committee how we can best support it while avoiding prejudicing the police investigation.
[HCWS207]
Financial Services: Critical Third Parties Regime
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 amended the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to establish a new framework enabling the oversight of those third parties whose services are critical to the stability of the UK financial sector. This framework forms an important part of the Government’s wider programme to promote a resilient, stable and internationally competitive financial services sector.
The designation of a third party will enable the financial regulators—jointly the Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority—to apply proportionate and targeted oversight of the systemically critical services, focused on managing risks to UK financial stability.
Regulations have been made under section 312L of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to designate specific third party entities as critical third parties where this is necessary to manage systemic risks arising from these services they provide to the UK financial sector.
These regulations will come into force on 13 July 2026 and form part of a rolling programme of designations with further designations expected in the future as part of the ongoing regime and as risks to the operational resilience of the UK financial sector evolve.
[HCWS212]
Social Work Regulation in England: Independent Review
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
On 5 November 2025, I informed the House that the Secretary of State for Education had commissioned Dame Annie Hudson to undertake the statutory independent review of the operation of part 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I am now updating the House to confirm that the review has concluded and that today I am laying before Parliament Dame Annie Hudson’s review report together with the Government response. The review and the Government response relate to Social Work England and the regulation of social workers in England.
I would like to thank Dame Annie Hudson, the review team, and the many stakeholders who contributed evidence and insight to this important review.
The review was asked to assess how effectively Social Work England is discharging its statutory functions and delivering against its statutory objectives, and to consider whether changes are needed to support more effective regulation and improved standards in social work practice.
The review recognises progress since Social Work England was established, including maintaining the register, developing its regulatory approach and standards, completing its first round of inspections, progressing equalities work, and developing approaches to early resolution of concerns.
The review nevertheless concludes that there is a clear case for change to secure sustained improvement. It identifies the need for stronger performance in core regulatory functions, particularly fitness to practise; greater clarity about the role and remit of Social Work England; and stronger governance, sponsorship and accountability arrangements. It also calls for a more coherent standards landscape across professional regulation, qualifying education and post qualifying development; clearer expectations for employers and the wider system; and better use of data, transparency and equalities analysis.
The Government accept the review’s central conclusion that sustained improvement is needed in social work regulation in England. This is a shared improvement agenda. Social Work England has a central role in delivering effective regulation, but Government, employers and wider partners also have responsibilities. The Government response therefore sets out the action we expect Social Work England to take, the steps Government will take to strengthen sponsorship and system coherence, and the areas where further work with partners will be needed.
Social workers do vital work with children, families and adults, often in complex and challenging circumstances. Effective professional regulation is essential to public protection, public confidence and high professional standards. It is therefore important that Social Work England is focused on delivering its regulatory functions effectively and that improvement is practical, visible and sustained.
Fitness to practise is the most significant operational priority identified by the review. It is central to public protection and public confidence. The Government recognise that fitness to practise pressures are not unique to Social Work England, and that regulators across sectors are managing increasing case volumes and complexity. However, delays, poor communication and insufficient grip across the end-to-end process affect everyone involved: people who raise concerns, social workers under investigation, witnesses, employers and the wider public.
The Government are clear that urgent improvement is required in timeliness, communications, user experience and strategic grip across the end-to-end process. They therefore expect Social Work England to deliver, within six months, an externally supported, end-to-end fitness to practise strategic improvement plan, building on work already under way and bringing existing plans together into a single coherent approach. This must include clear milestones, revised forecasts and key performance indicators (KPI) on timeliness, methods to track progress and arrangements to recalibrate at pace where needed. The Department for Education will provide strengthened oversight, with regular reporting and ministerial visibility of progress, risks and escalation points. If Social Work England does not meet this six-month deadline, or if reporting shows inadequate progress against the plan, the Government will escalate intervention, including through governance, sponsorship and statutory levers available to the Secretary of State.
The Government response also sets out our position on legislative and procedural changes that may support a more effective fitness to practise process. These include issues relating to the lawful sharing and use of relevant information from private family court proceedings, accepted disposal powers, the role of the Professional Standards Authority, information sharing, suspension, and any further changes identified through the fitness to practise strategic improvement plan. We will consider these carefully, including the appropriate route and timing.
The review also makes important findings about the role, leadership and sponsorship of Social Work England. The Government agree that the regulator’s role must be clearly focused on core regulatory functions and remain distinct from professional representation or wider sector improvement activity. This does not prevent proportionate engagement, communications, data and equalities work where these support effective regulation.
Strong leadership, effective challenge and clear accountability will be essential to delivering the improvements required. The Government will work with Social Work England to ensure the board has the right expertise, including in social work and regulation. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care will also strengthen joint working and senior engagement so that sponsorship better reflects both children’s and adults’ social work and supports clear accountability for progress.
The review also concludes that the standards landscape for social work needs to be more coherent. The Government agree that social workers, employers, education providers and the public should be able to understand clearly how different standards, frameworks and guidance fit together. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care will work with Social Work England and relevant sector bodies to develop an overarching framework, reducing duplication, clarifying the status of different standards and guidance, and supporting a more coherent relationship between qualifying education, professional regulation, continuing professional development, and post-qualifying development. Where the review recommends longer-term changes to post-qualifying standards and assurance, the Government will consider the appropriate route, timing and deliverability, including policy, legal, funding and capacity implications.
As part of this, the Government support Social Work England reviewing its education and training standards including the knowledge, skills and behaviours, and clarifying how they should support assessment in practice placements. The aim should be a clearer and more practice-focused framework for initial qualifying social work education, which supports high and common expectations across children’s and adults’ social work.
The Government also agree that better data, transparency, and equalities analysis are essential to effective regulation and public confidence, particularly in understanding fitness to practise outcomes, differential impacts, and the experience of different groups.
The Government will work closely with Social Work England and partners across the sector to deliver practical and sustained improvement, with clear expectations, regular oversight and escalation where progress is not sufficient. Copies of the review report and the Government response will be available on gov.uk and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS208]
Sizewell B: Contract for Difference
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
My honourable Friend Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, has today made the following statement:
The Government mission to become a clean energy superpower is about delivering secure, affordable and low carbon electricity for households and businesses, reducing our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets and protecting billpayers for the long term.
As we move towards a clean power system, electricity demand is expected to increase significantly as heat, transport and industry are electrified. Delivering this transition at the lowest cost requires a mix of technologies. While renewable energy will form the backbone of the system, baseload power such as nuclear is essential to maintain system reliability, reduce overall system costs and protect consumers from exposure to global energy price shocks.
Nuclear power therefore plays a vital role in delivering a secure, low cost and low carbon electricity system. As a source of reliable electricity produced wholly within the UK, it provides baseload generation to complement renewable output and helps reduce reliance on imports.
Extending the lifetime of existing nuclear power stations is the most cost-effective way of delivering further nuclear generation. It allows the UK to make best use of existing assets, delivering significant volumes of clean power at lower cost than alternative forms of new generation.
This approach is consistent with international best practice. Several countries, including Belgium, France and the US, have recently taken steps to extend the lifetimes of their existing nuclear power stations to strengthen energy security and support decarbonisation.
Located in Suffolk, Sizewell B is a critical part of the UK’s nuclear fleet. Since coming online in 1995, it has provided over 270 TWh of low carbon electricity, helping to maintain security of supply and reduce emissions. Without intervention, the plant is currently expected to cease operations in 2035, despite it being technically feasible for it to continue generating for an additional 20 years.
There are strong reasons to support the continued operation of the plant.
Firstly, on security of supply, Sizewell B provides electricity that is not dependent on weather conditions. This is critical to maintaining a resilient electricity system, particularly during periods of low renewable output, and helps reduce reliance on imported energy.
Secondly, analysis shows that extending Sizewell B and making continued use of the existing infrastructure will significantly reduce overall system costs, relative to a low carbon counterfactual without the project. By locking in a stable price, the contract for difference will also help protect consumers from future volatility in wholesale electricity prices. During periods of high prices, payments flow back to billpayers, delivering direct consumer benefit. Had Sizewell B been operating under this agreement during the energy price crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, consumers would have saved around £2 billion.
Thirdly, the project will support 900 highly skilled on-site roles, helping to sustain both the UK nuclear supply chain and the expertise required to deliver future nuclear projects. This is in addition to the economic benefits associated with the new investment required for the life extension works.
To unlock the private investment required for this extension, the Government have reached agreement on a commercial heads of terms with EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd for a bespoke contract for difference to support the lifetime extension of Sizewell B.
The contract for difference, once signed, will enable the continued operation of Sizewell B beyond 2035, securing sufficient low carbon power for the equivalent of 2.5 million homes for a further 20 years, supporting our clean power mission and wider energy security objectives.
The key terms are as follows:
A strike price of £70.50 per MWh (2025 prices), reflecting robust due diligence and benchmarking against comparable projects.
A 20 year contract term, aligned with the planned extension period.
A two-way contract for difference structure, ensuring that when electricity prices are high, payments flow back to consumers.
Consumer protection measures, including a one-way cost gain share mechanism, which would ensure consumers benefit from cost savings during the refurbishment phase. All cost overrun risk sits with the developer.
Incentives to support timely delivery of the lifetime extension works, avoid extended plant downtime and efficiently manage operation costs.
Existing arrangements for decommissioning and waste management remain in place.
Taken together, these terms represent a balanced deal that supports investment while protecting billpayers.
Implementation of the heads of terms is subject to reaching agreement on the long-form contract for difference, as well as required regulatory approvals and legislative amendments to enable existing nuclear plants to become eligible for contracts for difference. The Government intend to progress these steps in parallel to support the timely delivery of the project. Further details of the agreement will be published in due course.
[HCWS205]
Veterinary Sector
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I can today inform the House of the publication of a White Paper outlining the Government’s vision for supporting a thriving, modern veterinary sector through reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
We are a country that cares deeply for animals, whether they are our pets and companions, our farmed animals or our wildlife. Veterinary professionals do incredible work to uphold our high animal health and welfare standards, safeguard our biosecurity, support animal disease control and maintain food security and public health, as well as enable trade agreements.
To continue to deliver this, the veterinary sector needs a modern, fair and effective regulatory system that reflects the realities of today’s veterinary practice and supports a sustainable workforce. The White Paper sets out the Government’s vision to achieve this through reform of the VSA.
It responds to our recent public consultation, which gained over 6,000 responses, demonstrating the significant support for VSA reform. This reflects the years of calls from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the profession and the public to reform the VSA.
The White Paper also sets out the Government’s response to the market investigation into veterinary services for household pets undertaken by the Competition and Markets Authority. It confirms that our proposed reforms will address competition concerns and support innovation, consumer choice and economic growth.
Since the current VSA came into force 60 years ago, the profession has changed beyond recognition, as have our views about animals and their welfare. The current legislation is inflexible and no longer fit for purpose. It does not recognise the incredible work that is undertaken by veterinary nurses or allied veterinary professionals, and nor does it take into account changes in business ownership across the sector. It does not reflect best practice with regard to managing fitness to practise or the governance of the regulator, and it does not do enough to protect consumers.
Reform of the VSA would address all of this to ensure that the veterinary sector remains fit for purpose, flexible and future-facing.
This White Paper sets out four broad areas of reform:
Regulation of all veterinary professionals;
Regulation of all veterinary and animal healthcare businesses;
Support for consumers; and
Structures and governance of the regulator.
One of our key aims in this reform is to ensure that we continue to uphold animal health and welfare by strengthening our veterinary workforce through recognition of all members of the veterinary team. This would ensure that animals receive the best and most appropriate care from qualified and licensed professionals. This will be key to increasing our resilience to exotic and endemic disease threats, playing a vital role in strengthening our food security and biosecurity.
Our economy would be supported by breaking down barriers to opportunities, regulating all veterinary businesses and increasing competition for consumers. We are proposing introducing new licensing options to increase access to the professions, especially for those with disabilities, and bringing all veterinary professionals under the same regulatory umbrella. Increased responsibilities for veterinary professionals would go hand in hand with increased support to new and returning veterinary surgeons and nurses in order to strengthen the workforce and address the challenges of recruitment and retention.
Finally, our proposals seek to rectify the issues identified by the CMA through proportionate business regulation, increased access to information and price transparency, to support this Government’s commitment to help people with the cost of living.
The proposed UK-wide changes in the White Paper are crucial to transforming legislation in order to maintain high standards of animal health and welfare, protect the public and consumers, and uphold public trust in the veterinary professions.
[HCWS203]
FCDO Services Ministerial Targets 2026-27
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
FCDO Services operates as a trading fund of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In line with normal practice, I have set the following performance targets for 2026-27:
An in-year surplus before interest, tax and dividend;
Achievement of the return on capital employed of at least 6.5% (weighted average);
A productivity ratio of at least 82%, measuring actual billable hours versus available billable hours;
An in-year customer satisfaction rating average of at least 82;
An average civil service people survey score for “Employee Engagement” of at least 61%; and
An average civil service people survey score for “My Manager” of at least 65%.
FCDO Services will report to Parliament on its success against these targets through its annual report and accounts for 2026-27.
FCDO Services is an executive agency and trading fund of the FCDO. It provides a range of integrated, secure services worldwide to the FCDO and other UK Government Departments, supporting the delivery of Government agendas. Services include protective security, estates and construction, cloud computing, communications and monitoring, logistics, translation and interpreting. This is combined with a portfolio of global maintenance work. FCDO Services also manages the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping, helping protect UK assets from physical, electronic and cyber-attack.
[HCWS210]
Building Safety and Remediation
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
This Government are committed to ensuring there is an effective building safety regime in place, so that people can be confident their homes are safe. It is hugely important to correct the mistakes of the past so that residents can move on with their lives. Furthermore, I am of the view that good regulation supports growth as well as safety. Today, I am announcing the next stage in development for the wider building safety system.
In line with calls from industry, residents and campaigners, we are enabling new applications to the cladding safety scheme to be prioritised according to risk to life, rather than solely by building height. This will ensure buildings assessed as presenting the highest risk to life are prioritised for remediation.
As part of this risk-based approach, we are also taking targeted action to address fire safety risks in buildings below 11 metres, where serious, life-critical cladding defects fall outside the scope of statutory protections, leaving leaseholders often facing significant cladding remediation costs.
We have investigated all under 11 metres buildings brought to our attention since 2022. The vast majority have not required cladding remediation, with fire risks often addressed through proportionate, lower-cost mitigation measures. Only a limited number of buildings have been found to require cladding remediation.
We acknowledge that leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres have faced prolonged uncertainty. I am pleased to confirm today that we are launching new, targeted funding to support the remediation of unsafe cladding on a small number of multi-occupancy residential buildings under 11 metres in England. This will be delivered through an extension of the cladding safety scheme and administered by Homes England. This delivers on the commitment set out in the remediation acceleration plan update in July last year.
Funding will prioritise high-risk buildings with the most serious cladding fire safety defects. Following support for these cases, any remaining funding may be directed to other buildings where intervention would deliver the greatest benefit in reducing risk and supporting residents. Applications for funding are expected to open in August.
From autumn 2026, the national remediation database, delivered by Homes England, will provide a single view of remediation activity across relevant buildings, improving information sharing and supporting oversight across partner organisations.
Responsible persons such as building owners remain responsible for ensuring a building is safe and life-critical defects are addressed.
In addition, today we are publishing the findings of the remediation programme insurance survey, which indicates that some leaseholders continue to face particularly high insurance costs despite progress in remediating building safety defects. The Financial Conduct Authority will work with MHCLG and HMT to undertake a short, focused review of the multi-occupancy buildings insurance market. The review will explore how insurers’ pricing approaches for multiple occupancy buildings have changed since 2023, how firms are considering leaseholders’ interests when assessing whether their products deliver fair value, and how fire safety remediation work and other related factors are being taken into account in insurers’ risk assessments. It will also work with Association of British Insurers and MHCLG to assess the effectiveness of the fire safety reinsurance facility in increasing market capacity and reducing premiums.
Alongside this, we are publishing the Government response to the single construction regulator prospectus consultation. The Government welcome the broad support for the single construction regulator (SCR) from respondents. Our response to the consultation sets out the Government’s direction for the SCR, including our vision and ambition for the regulator, outcomes for the building system and the SCR’s primary objective. It confirms our intention to bring forward primary legislation as the next step towards establishing the SCR, using the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) as its foundation.
Establishing the SCR will support a more effective, fair and coherent regulatory system that improves outcomes for residents and building users while providing greater clarity for industry.
The Government continue to drive reform across the wider building safety system. Our objective is to ensure that the system established after the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy is protecting residents, supporting responsible development and operating in a clear, proportionate and effective way.
As the new framework has matured, experience has shown where improvements can be made while maintaining the protections residents rightly expect. The reforms announced today will improve how the regime operates in practice while maintaining high standards of safety.
That begins with improving the proportionality of the higher-risk buildings regime. Robust oversight of safety critical work remains essential, but requirements must be targeted and efficient if they are to command confidence and support delivery. A proportionate regime is not a compromise on safety. It is essential to ensure regulatory effort and limited specialist resources are focused where they have the greatest positive impact on safety and efficiency. We are therefore publishing today the response to two consultations, on recategorising work in existing higher-risk buildings and on targeted dispensations from procedural requirements for telecommunications work in existing buildings, as well as launching a new consultation on the emergency repairs route.
Furthermore, the BSR will also introduce a revised approach to building assessment certificates. This will provide an effective and proportionate, risk-based approach to managing occupied higher-risk buildings, with greater support for principal accountable persons, particularly resident-led organisations and those managing complex cases. The BSR will develop updated processes, prioritisation and guidance to help protect residents and leaseholders from unnecessary additional costs. The core duties established by the Building Safety Act will not change. Accountable persons must continue to manage their buildings effectively and take all reasonable steps to protect residents from fire spread and structural failure.
Taken together, this package of measures ensures the building safety framework remains focused on proportionate management of risk to be effective in operation and firmly centred on protecting residents.
[HCWS209]
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service: IPP Sentence Annual Report 2025-26
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson) has today made the following statement:
Today, I am laying before Parliament the HMPPS 2025-26 annual report on the IPP sentence, pursuant to section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
This report sets out the activity across HMPPS for the financial year of 2025-26 to support those serving the IPP sentence in prison to work towards a safe release, and those in the community, towards the termination of their licence.
The latest published statistics show that as at 31 March 2026, there were 896 unreleased and 1,433 recalled IPP prisoners, compared to 1,012 unreleased and 1,532 recalled IPP prisoners on the corresponding date in 2025. As at 31 December 2025, there were 891 offenders serving IPP sentences in the community and 207 prisoners in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983, compared to 1,376 offenders in the community and 233 prisoners in hospital on the corresponding date in 2024.
The Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 22 January 2026, introduced further reforms to IPP licence termination on 1 June 2026. These reforms: reduced the qualifying period for licence termination from three years to two years following first release; and enable individuals whose licence is not terminated at the end of this period to apply for a further Parole Board review one year later, prior to automatic termination.
The IPP action plan 2026-27 is included as part of this annual report, which sets out planned HMPPS activity for the year, including six measurable targets. Through the IPP action plan HMPPS has committed funding to sustain vital services such as the IPP approved premises pilot, and to trial a new IPP advocate role, designed to provide more personalised support to those serving IPP sentences. Further successes include:
Additional funding for psychology services, enabling greater access to specialist assessments for individuals facing the most significant barriers to progression.
The phoenix unit at HMP Aylesbury is due to open later this summer as a purpose-designed residential unit to support IPP prisoners who have become disengaged from progression.
A release on temporary licence model has been agreed for all four progression regime prisons—Humber, Warren Hill, Erlestoke and Buckley Hall—to enable IPP ROTL.
Strengthened recall processes by: streamlining the documentation required for a recall request, to ensure that the reasons for recall are robustly and clearly stated; enhancing quality assurance for decision-making; delivering additional training for public protection casework section staff who formally revoke an offender’s licence; and ensuring that only senior managers in PPCS can revoke the licence.
In addition, HMPPS used the risk assessed recall review power to re-release 61 recalled IPP prisoners between 1 November 2024 and 31 December 2025, in some cases months ahead of a scheduled parole hearing.
The Government are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for all those serving the IPP sentence and an eventual end to their sentence, but only in such a way that does not put the public and victims at risk.
[HCWS204]
Timms Review: Interim Report
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am pleased to make this statement in relation to the Timms review of personal independence payment.
The Government have today published the interim report on behalf of the steering group for the Timms review. The report is available on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government launched the Timms review to help ensure that PIP is fair and fit for the future in a changing world, and that it helps to support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment. The terms of reference set out that the review must operate within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections for future PIP expenditure, to ensure that it is there to support generations to come.
The review is being co-produced with disabled people and other experts. The review is led by me and two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE, to whom I am very grateful, and a steering group of 12 people, almost all disabled people, who together are bringing their expertise and experience to shape and lead the work. This is the first time the UK Government have undertaken co-production at this scale, and I am grateful for the commitment and passion of this group.
No single group can be representative of the full diversity of disabled people’s experiences. That is why the steering group has set up a wide range of evidence-gathering and engagement opportunities, to provide varied, accessible options for people with differing lived and learned experiences to get involved, and to ensure that the group can hear from as many different perspectives as possible.
The publication of the interim report today marks a significant milestone for the review and reflects its commitment to openness and transparency. The report has been published on gov.uk in a range of accessible versions, including braille, British Sign Language, audio, easy read, Welsh, large print and web-accessible formats.
The report does not contain recommendations or Government policy; it provides an account of the work of the review to date and explains how the review is being co-produced with people with lived and learned experience. It sets out the evidence considered so far and presents the review’s emerging themes. It also outlines the next steps for the review, including how over the coming months it will continue its evidence and engagement programme to test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in lived and learned experience.
The report delivers a clear message from the steering group, based on the evidence it has seen and heard so far: while PIP is widely valued as a benefit, it is no longer fit for purpose.
The report explains that PIP is often described as fundamental to managing the practical realities of a disability, from enabling access to transport and work, to supporting everyday activities. However, the experience of claiming PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising. For some people, the current design and delivery of PIP can create barriers to participation, including work, community life and everyday activities, rather than supporting independence and participation as intended.
The report is published alongside the findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses from disabled people, organisations that represent them, carers, clinicians, experts, Members of Parliament and other stakeholders. An existing evidence pack compiled by the Department for Work and Pensions, which was provided to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering, is also published. Neither of these are meant to act as a single source of the truth but are shared as part of the review’s commitment to openness and transparency.
As well as sincere thanks to the steering group for their commitment to this work, I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed their time, evidence and experience to the review so far. The review remains committed to ensuring that disabled people’s voices are central to this work as it looks ahead to developing, testing and refining its final recommendations, which are to be submitted to the Secretary of State in the autumn.
I look forward to updating the House on the progress of this crucial work.
[HCWS211]
Grand Committee
Contemporary Cultural Boycotts
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Freedom in the Arts report The New Boycott Crisis, published in February 2026, and of the impact on artistic freedom of contemporary cultural boycotts.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee the themes in this recent report, The New Boycott Crisis. If we value art as a crucial mirror on society, the corruption of art reflects social trends right back at us and we should look back closely, so I say many thanks go to those noble Lords who are doing that today.
The report was launched here in Westminster at the end of April, alongside the Art Beyond Boycott Toolkit. It was a packed room with lots of cross-party attendance. The authors are co-founders of Freedom in the Arts, Rosie Kay, an award-winning choreographer, and Denise Fahmy, a senior arts professional, who teamed up with Reading University’s Professor Jo Phoenix. All three have experienced the vicious consequence of cancel culture. They combine their personal insights with oodles of professional knowledge to provide a multilayered investigation into how boycotts operate against different art forms, looking not just at individual artists but at gatekeepers such as venues, agents, managers and producers.
Using survey data and qualitative interviews, the report shows how even the threat of cultural boycotts is leading to anticipatory cancellation, institutional anxiety, silent boycotts and self-censorship. The report is so on the money that it got extensive media coverage even in the same crowded week as the local elections. Significantly, it was picked up by specialist publications such as Arts Professional, Museums Journal, Chortle and Mixmag, no doubt because it cut through due to its insights into the genuinely heartbreaking stories of individual artists brought to financial and reputational personal ruin by boycotts—you cannot get more personal than being cancelled because of your identity. As the report documents, that is the fate of so many Jewish artists today.
Perhaps this is nothing new. As we head into August and Edinburgh Festival season, I recall years of participating in that wonderful, artistically rich atmosphere, when the Academy of Ideas put on arts debates and live reviewing at the Fringe and at the book and international festivals. It was a joy, but it started to turn sour when, 20 years ago, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanded boycotts of any art form involving Israelis. Whether it was an ugly disruption of a performance of the Jerusalem Quartet in 2008, with activists yelling, “Israeli-armed musicians”, or a decade later, getting an Israeli hip-hop opera evicted from its venue. These were shocking but marginal, isolated incidents. What is shocking today is that such occurrences are so regular they are barely noticed. The campaign against antisemitism notes:
“Discrimination against Jewish people has become normalised in the arts: it’s now simply part of doing business as a Jewish creative in modern Britain”.
The report notes something else that has changed. If boycotts were historically public, involving external bodies bullying arts organisations, today they have evolved into an internal, systemic dynamic within arts organisations. Sometimes, it is a leadership team more driven by ideological agendas than artistic excellence, but more often it is insidious, with weak management capitulating to staff complaints demanding that their well-being is protected from allegedly dangerous performers. Last year, comics Philip Simon’s show “Jew-O-Rama” and Rachel Creeger’s “Ultimate Jewish Mother” had their acts pulled at the last minute by a fringe venue. The reason? Staff at the venue complained of “feeling unsafe”. Apparently, a fictional comedic Jewish mother was a threat to employee safety.
The report is full of similar evidence of employees activating internal HR procedures to reframe political demands. There is an additional institutional vehicle used similarly, especially in publicly funded arts organisations, and that is values frameworks and equality, diversity and inclusion policies. I know that the Government can be a little defensive about the virtues of EDI, but I hope the Minister will examine the documentation of how EDI is being weaponised to demand the boycotting of certain artists. I note that in February, DCMS Minister Ian Murray MP, while stating the Government’s commitment to free speech, caveated it. He quoted the Secretary of State’s ambition not to stoke the culture wars, and stressed the need to protect people from hate speech. But does the Minister acknowledge that, in many institutions, the culture wars are stoked by EDI enthusiasts and that hate speech is often a euphemism for speech someone disagrees with? Arts organisations often state that their value statements are anti-hate to justify cancelling Zionist and gender-critical artists, for example.
In her moving and passionate speech at the report’s launch, acclaimed singer-songwriter Róisín Murphy, herself a victim of a high-profile vicious boycott after speaking her mind on puberty blockers, made an important, relevant point. She said:
“Public funding, meant to support excellence regardless of politics, has become an ideological points system …This isn’t patronage. It’s patronage with strings attached so tight they strangle the critical thinking it takes to invent anything”.
What can politicians and government do to help the arts escape this censorious stranglehold? While the Arts Council declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary launch of the report, it was notable that a couple of days later, after two Jewish men were murdered in Golders Green, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, used the opportunity to put pressure on the Arts Council. He said:
“Where public funding is being used to promote or platform antisemitism, the Arts Council must act, using its powers to suspend, withdraw and claw back funding”.
That is a positive sentiment, but I worry about cancelling the cancellers as a tactic. It perhaps also misses more subtle, silent boycotts, rather than the overt anti-Jewish abuse. Also, it does not note that a wider range of artists with dissenting views are now targeted.
For example, Scottish performance poet Jenny Lindsay, author of the aptly titled book Hounded, explains that after a tweet criticising a trans activist threatening violence against lesbians, she had seven months of private, quiet, bewildering cancellation, losing work without knowing why, unanswered emails, complaints to her publishers, messages saying we are frightened to book you. She notes, “It was clear people had got a memo: Jenny Lindsay’s a TERF”. But with no paper trails, no proof, just commissions swerved in case they cause grief, it can be especially isolating. The real loss is, “artwork that was never made and never seen”.
I therefore hope that the Minister will meet the authors of this report to discuss how the Government can help the sector adopt the report’s proposals to improve institutional capacity to resist this politicisation of programming and employment decisions that is discriminatory in terms of who gets to create, perform, exhibit and publish. Artistic judgments must be centre stage. Leadership from Ministers could include public support for boycotted artists, encouraging publicly funded arts organisations—indeed, the Arts Council—to adopt the Freedom in the Arts free speech charter.
To conclude, artistic creation needs freedom to challenge, explore, surprise and push boundaries. Otherwise, art created and programmed will be risk-averse, narrower, safer, samey, carefully calculated and curated not to offend. What a dreary tragedy. To quote Róisín Murphy again:
“Without that freedom, we don’t get better art, we simply put artists into a chokehold and suffocate the life out of our culture”.
The arts must breathe freely again. How can the Minister help them breathe freely again?.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this important debate. The Freedom in the Arts report raises important questions about artistic freedom and the role of our cultural institutions in an increasingly polarised society. While Members may reach different conclusions about some of the findings, I believe it presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the kind of cultural institutions we want for our country.
Art has always challenged society. It can inspire, provoke, comfort and sometimes unsettle us. Shakespeare explored powers, prejudice, justice and the human condition. I am sure each of us can think of a contemporary work of art that has challenged our assumptions or encouraged us to see the world through different eyes. Great art does more than entertain, it invites us to question, reflect and better understand one another. That is why the arts matter not only to our economy but to our national identity and to the strength of our democracy itself?
Drawing on my experience of leading one of London’s most diverse boroughs, I think that one of the greatest lessons that I have learned is that good leadership is not about eliminating difference; it is about creating the conditions for respectful dialogue, where people of different backgrounds, faiths, cultures and perspectives can come together, encounter new ideas and learn from one another. That is why our theatres, galleries, museums and festivals are so important. They are among the few places where people who may never agree on every issue can still sit in the same audience, visit the same exhibition or share the same cultural experience. In doing so, they encounter different perspectives and often leave with a deeper understanding of one another. Equally, the right to peaceful protest and criticism is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The challenge before us is not choosing one freedom over another, but ensuring that artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest can both flourish and coexist.
The report raises important questions about the pressures that some cultural organisations face when making difficult decisions. Whether those pressures are widespread or more limited, it is right that we consider how institutions can be supported to respond with confidence, fairness and integrity. The true test of a cultural institution is not whether it avoids controversy but whether it has the confidence to navigate controversy fairly, openly and with integrity. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of whether publicly funded cultural institutions have the confidence and support that they need to uphold artistic freedom while fostering respectful dialogue and community cohesion? Are there examples of good practice that the Government believe should be shared more widely across the cultural sector?
Artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest are not competing principles. We must ensure that our cultural institutions have the strength of leadership and the confidence to strike the right balance between protecting artistic freedom, respecting the right to peaceful protest and fostering dialogue and community cohesion.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. The New Boycott Crisis raises issues that go well beyond disagreements over politics or foreign affairs. It asks whether we are still willing to defend one of the defining characteristics of a free society—the freedom to create, perform, exhibit and debate without fear of ideological intimidation. Art has always challenged orthodoxies. It provokes, unsettles and encourages us to see the world differently. That is precisely why artistic freedom matters. If artists, writers, musicians and performers feel compelled to self-censor because of organised campaigns, threats or pressure to conform to a political orthodoxy, our cultural life is diminished.
The report documents a growing trend of cancellations, boycotts and institutional pressure directed not at the quality of artistic work but at the ethnicity, religion, perceived political views or associations of those producing it. Hearing the stories from the founders of Freedom in the Arts, Denise Fahmy, Rosie Kay and others, at the launch in April, was powerful and shocking, especially to those who were not really aware of how quickly cancellation happens and how brutal it is.
Throughout history, boycotts based on identity have rarely advanced understanding. During the Cold War, we rightly welcomed Soviet dissidents, musicians and writers, rather than excluding them; we recognised that culture builds bridges where politics erects barriers. Universities, museums, theatres and galleries should be places where difficult ideas are encountered, not places where only approved opinions are permitted.
Increasingly, however, cultural institutions find themselves under pressure from highly organised activist campaigns that seek not to debate but to silence. Decisions are sometimes made because managers fear reputational damage or disruption rather than because they reflect the institution’s commitment to artistic excellence. This has consequences beyond the arts. Once organisations begin deciding who may speak or perform according to political tests, we erode the principle of viewpoint diversity that underpins liberal democracy itself.
The report’s emphasis on stronger institutional leadership is to be welcomed. Trustees and governing bodies should have the confidence to uphold freedom of expression even when doing so attracts criticism. Publicly funded cultural organisations have a particular responsibility to serve the whole public, not simply the loudest campaigners. The Government also have a role. The protections for freedom of expression in our law are important, but they must be accompanied by clear expectations that publicly funded institutions will defend artistic freedom consistently and transparently. Funding agreements should reinforce rather than undermine this principle.
This debate is not about shielding anyone from criticism. Artists should expect robust debate and peaceful protest. However, criticism is very different from organised efforts to prevent performances, exhibitions or collaborations from taking place at all. The answer to speech that we dislike is more speech, not enforced silence. Our cultural institutions have long been admired because they have welcomed excellence from every nation, every background and every viewpoint. We should not allow them to become places where ideological conformity replaces intellectual curiosity.
Freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is one of the foundations of a confident, democratic and open society. If we fail to defend it now, we will be all the poorer not only culturally but civically. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising the report and I commend the founders and supporters of Freedom in the Arts. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to its recommendations, reaffirming that, in Britain, artistic freedom remains a principle worth defending.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this subject is one of those where you suddenly think, “Yes, there shouldn’t be any form of cancellation”—here, primarily on grounds of antisemitism. I have always felt it to be rather absurd that the Abrahamic religions attack each other over which day they pray on, given that half the time they are all referring to similar texts, but let us go into this issue in further detail.
I turn to the recommendations in the report. It admits that it is not the most scientific of structures but, still, questions around taking on the law and training for organisations have been asked. It says that on page 6. What are the Government going to do to make sure that there are training schemes? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not a fan of them; we have clashed on this in the past. We need to go through this and have a look at what we are doing to make sure that there is knowledge of the legal duties going forward, because that seems to be the issue here. The question of whether you are breaking the law if you do not allow somebody to do something that is legal and is not threatening somebody else seems to be the real question here.
Let us remember that, although one organisation may be under pressure now, another one will be tomorrow. Other groups have been cancelled and other people have been pressured. Things have changed. Look at our own society: we have Protestants and Catholics—I speak as somebody whose background is half from the west coast of Scotland. These are real issues. What are the Government doing about making sure that the people in charge know what their duty is? That is very important here. If we cannot stop unpleasant attitudes going out in society, at least we can let people know what the legal frameworks and duties are. Surely that is the least the Government should be doing at this point.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for introducing the debate, which is of course timely. I thank Freedom of the Arts for this report, but I thank in particular the artists, the performers and the writers who found the courage to describe what has been happening to them. Speaking out is never easy when doing so may cost you your next role.
This report does not allege formal censorship. It describes something quieter and in some ways more sinister and more troubling. It calls it “the silent boycott”. Opportunities simply disappear. Invitations are quietly withdrawn. Projects never quite materialise. Emails are left unanswered. Careers stall not for a want of talent but because of an artist’s Jewish identity or assumptions made about it.
This has become something that institutions would rather manage than defend. The report is candid about the cause. Institutions are increasingly driven by fear: fear of a social media pile-on, fear of activist pressure, fear of internal disputes or fear of a controversy that has not even happened yet. Decisions are being taken pre-emptively before a single complaint is even made. This is not caution. Once an institution starts programming to avoid a row rather than to reward excellence, artistic freedom does not stay intact for long.
Let me be clear about what this debate is not. It is not about shielding anyone from criticism or closing down legitimate political debate, including robust arguments on the Middle East. Freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticise the Government of Israel, but criticism of a Government can never justify the exclusion of an individual because he or she is Jewish. That distinction is fundamental and this report finds, again and again, that it is being lost. Jewish identity itself is increasingly treated as politically contentious, regardless of what the work in question actually says, and none of this happens in isolation. The Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents just last year, one of the highest totals it has ever logged. The arts do not sit apart from that reality. They are part of it and, because they help shape how the country talks to itself, they carry a greater responsibility to get this right, not a lesser one.
Cultural boycotts have a long and unhappy history and they rarely open a conversation. More often, they close one down, narrowing perspectives and impoverishing the very culture they claim to defend. What has always made British culture strong is confidence: the confidence that ideas can be debated, that disagreement can be aired and that audiences can be trusted to make up their own minds. That confidence should not now be allowed to give way to fear.
I ask the Minister three things. Will the Government make clear to the Arts Council of England that informal exclusion of Jewish artists is antisemitism, not just discrimination? What support will the Government give publicly funded institutions to withstand pressure campaigns? Will the Government tie funding to proof that programming decisions are made on merit, not on fear? Our arts should be open to all. They should reward talent and defend freedom, and they should never become places where an artist has to conceal who he or she is to work.
I conclude with a tribute and a plea—a tribute to a British icon, my friend Maureen Lipman. A couple of weeks ago, I saw her perform brilliantly as “Allegra” in Windsor; it is opening tonight at the Harold Pinter Theatre, but activists have stood outside the theatre that she is playing with leaflets stating “Maureen Lipman supports genocide”. My plea to the Minister is this: is she aware of this, and is it right that Maureen, a proud Jew, has been forced to hire security guards because she is being targeted by anti-Israel activists?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing this important debate. Freedom of expression has always been the lifeblood of great art. Art flourishes through freedom, not conformity. History reminds us what happens when freedom is lost.
In the Soviet Union, writers and artists who challenged the official ideology were censored, blacklisted, imprisoned or sent to the Gulag. My own family experienced that world. My aunt was a dissident writer and a close friend of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anna Akhmatova. She chose satire as her way to defy the regime, rather than open political confrontation. Even so, she spent days under interrogation in the Lubyanka. She watched friends and fellow writers disappear into the Gulag, including her friend Solzhenitsyn. Like Akhmatova, she knew that in such a climate silence could become a means of survival.
Britain is not the Soviet Union, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but history teaches us that freedom is rarely lost overnight. It is eroded gradually as people begin to censor themselves, because they fear the consequences of speaking openly. The New Boycott Crisis suggests that this climate of fear is now affecting our cultural sector. As James Marriott wrote in the Times, something has gone badly wrong. A world once built on talent, merit and creative risk has, he argues, been replaced by a culture of fear, informal sanctions and institutional cowardice.
The report identifies two groups as particularly affected: Jewish artists and those with gender-critical beliefs. Since 7 October, some Jewish artists, as we have heard, have found themselves judged not by the quality of their work but by their identity. Likewise, gender-critical artists, such as Rosie Kay and Róisín Murphy, have described the professional backlash they faced for expressing lawful views. The problem arises when cultural institutions become so fearful of organised campaigns that they no longer defend artistic freedom. Instead, they quietly exclude those views considered controversial, not because they are unlawful but because they are not fashionable. The greatest casualty is self-censorship. We never see the play that was never written, the exhibition that was never staged or the young artist who decided it was simply safer to remain silent.
Does the Minister accept that artistic freedom includes the right to hold lawful gender-critical beliefs, even when those beliefs are not popular and considered controversial today? If public bodies are under a statutory duty to uphold freedom of speech, how will the Government ensure that this duty is honoured in practice rather than being quietly abandoned in the face of organised campaigns?
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lord, in his great essay The Prevention of Literature, George Orwell wrote:
“imagination, like certain wild animals, will not breed in captivity”.
I think this is a little commented-on reason why the current repression of free speech and freedom in the arts is such a problem. It affects not only those whose opinions are repressed but everybody. That repression is obviously outrageous in its own terms, with the shocking levels of antisemitism that have been documented and the bias against gender-critical views and even simple views on the right of politics. I congratulate Rosie Kay and Denise Fahmy for drawing attention to it in this excellent report, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for getting today’s debate.
As we know and as the report documents, the repression of free speech and the spread of antisemitism have had seriously bad effects on those directly affected. We know that. It constrains what they can produce, and it may force them entirely out of the sector. There are some telling quotes to this effect in the report, such as one artist saying:
“I realised how much of myself I had edited out just to survive”,
or:
“You make terrible art when you are cowering”.
This is clear—it is sort of obvious—but my point is that the effect is on not only those affected in this way, but on everybody else. It is on those who somehow get through it.
A politicised art sector produces a lot of bad art, and we have had quite a lot of it recently. On the London stage, from 20 years ago with “My name is Rachel Corrie”, through Ivo van Hove’s adaptation of “Who Killed My Father”, there has been a stream of plays about migration and refugees from one perspective and so on and so forth. Even when art is not politicised, this sort of sector produces an art that prioritises box-ticking and conformism. It produces art that is dull, worthless and often even contemptuous of its audience. It is a very good sign that Wigmore Hall and its director, John Gilhooly, have opted out of the Arts Council system. I cannot help noting that even the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, in her recent report on the Arts Council, said:
“People felt that ACE was pursuing access to culture in an instrumentalist way and had lowered the priority given to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Art and excellence were sidelined”.
This is the problem. I contend that any artist who is happy to submit to the ruling orthodoxy and prevailing opinions, who finds excuses for squeezing out people who do not agree with him or her or who regards policing ideology as more important than their own creative work will in the end destroy themselves as artists. We can see that at work. As we look around Britain’s artistic scene today and compare it to, say, the efflorescence in the arts of post-war Britain in both visual and written form, we can be confident that, with a few exceptions, the past couple of decades will not be seen as a golden age in British arts. I contend that public conformism, internal bigotry and the driving out of contrary opinions are a big part of the reason why.
I finish by quoting Orwell, this time in Writers and Leviathan. He said:
“To yield subjectively … even to a group ideology, is to destroy yourself as a writer”.
That is true for any artist. It needs to be stopped, and I would like to know what the Government are going to do about it.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. I must start by declaring my interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The Freedom in the Arts report gives us valuable insight into the worrying state of the arts and cultural sector. As it states, there is
“an interconnected web of … practices … that collectively polices the boundaries of acceptable thought, association, expression and programming within the arts”.
Unsurprisingly, mechanisms that allocate artistic funding funnel most support to currently prominent causes—climate activism, support for Palestine and opposition to Israel, transgender activism and anti-racism—and generally raise the status of people and organisations associated with those causes. But there are damaging consequences to this narrowing, which everyone should be concerned about, whatever their level of interest in and support for those causes.
Like my noble friend Lady Meyer, I take a historical perspective. In western Europe, it was really only in the 15th century that it became socially acceptable and normal to portray non-religious subjects in art. Over several centuries, the Catholic Church none the less monitored art ferociously to enforce approved narratives and discourage the spread of Protestant ideas, using the social penalties it could impose to make artists’ lives difficult—read the story of Veronese’s “Last Supper”. We do not want to return to inquisitions, whether by Governments, religious authorities or self-appointed commissars, and we should not want to return to an age where artistic expression is permitted only in the service of a narrow range of permitted interests and beliefs. But we have somehow moved a long way in that direction.
Artistic freedom eventually prevailed, and that freedom has brought many waves of creative exploration. Of course, that has sometimes been uncomfortable for some, but without exploration there can be no innovation. It is striking to look at how much artistic preoccupations have changed over time: the 1850s saw realism, truth to nature and a rejection of myths and legends; the 1950s saw adaptation to the new post-war world. We have no idea today what the artistic preoccupations of the 2050s may prove to be, but we can be absolutely certain that it is simply intellectual hubris to think that we have achieved a perpetual pinnacle of moral superiority to which all current practitioners in the arts and their successors should be bound.
Then there are the human impacts. I will touch on just four, which are well covered in the report. First, works that do not fit the current template are not being put on, or, too often, they are being shut down. Secondly, people are being shut down for their beliefs, even where they have no particular connection with their work. Many of the gender-critical artists are suffering from that. Thirdly, people are suffering simply because of who they happen to be. Examples have been given of Israeli and Jewish artists and groups that are unable to perform. That is simply intolerable. The fourth group I draw attention to are the young of this country. The status quo is affecting so strongly how they are shaped, both in education and in the community. They quickly learn what the high-status beliefs and opinions are and what not to say or acknowledge. If they are not allowed to see anything that contradicts those beliefs and opinions or explores a fresh direction, their lives are stunted and distorted.
Too many people have ducked the difficult issues here. It is time for a great deal more openness and discussion about rebuilding true artistic freedom. This report gives a very good platform for that.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate and Freedom in the Arts for its report, which certainly is rich and detailed. I am sorry that time means that I cannot do justice to all the noble Lords who have spoken before me, but I certainly associate myself with all those who have spoken out about our need to have constant vigilance and zero tolerance of antisemitism.
However, I want to focus on one particular aspect of cancel culture that is identified in the report, and that is the targeting of sponsors of those who fund the arts and who are essential for us to have what should be our starting point—that a healthy arts sector is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Protests, dissent, satire have long been the sources of the best art, and the priorities should always be to enable the most artistic expression possible without fear or favour. That is not to say that art exists in a space free from values. There will always be boundaries. But we should want to make the artistic square as large and inclusive as possible, and that means we need diverse funding, including sponsorship.
When it comes to the choices made, as other noble Lords have said, there should be a clear distinction between things that are illegal and things that simply some people do not like. I look at the recent example of the Sporting Events Bill in your Lordships’ House. There were assorted amendments proposed that would have banned sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and unhealthy food companies. We see within these boycott campaigns that it is not just the companies themselves that are being targeted but even financial institutions that might have minor investments in some of these companies, which are, of course, entirely legal in the activities that they are carrying out. We can take the example of the defence sector, which regularly comes up as being targeted. I regard BAE Systems as a successful British company that employs people in this country in high-skilled, well-paid jobs. If it wants to give something back by supporting artistic or cultural endeavours, then why on earth should it not be able to do so?
I also want to question the role that we have seen some artists take. We need to call out those high-profile artists who have put their names to campaigns to deny funding to the very institutions that those artists benefited from when they were starting out in their careers, when they were in the small theatres and so on that gave them their rise to be the high-profile campaigners that they are now.
We need a mixed economy of cultural funding that encompasses philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. That means we need a climate in which responsible sponsors feel able to support culture without expecting to become the next target of a campaign. Otherwise, we create a structural disincentive to private investment precisely at the time when the sector needs it most. There is a role for government here and for all of us. Institutions need to know that they have the support of politicians in order to resist the pressure of a small minority. We also need leadership in the arts sector. Policy cannot be made by social media, by tactics rather than strategy. There needs to be solidarity within the arts sector because while the beam of the lighthouse might not be at you at this moment, you can guarantee that it will come round to you next.
We are all in this together and, together, common sense can prevail so that we can have the arts and culture we need as a country.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this debate and to Freedom in the Arts for having produced this excellent and timely report. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union and will try and put a human face on what we are talking about. There are plenty of examples in The New Boycott Crisis. I thought I might give some examples from our own case files.
We have fought on behalf of 150 artists, writers and performers in the last six years of our existence, all of whom have been targeted for cancellation or, indeed, cancelled because they expressed views that other people disapprove of. Where possible, we have tried to help them. It is worth noting that more than one-third of the more than 150 people we have come to the aid of have been targeted for cancellation because they have expressed their gender-critical views. That is, I think, the coalface in the arts; it is what people find themselves cancelled or targeted for cancellation for more often than expressing any other point of view. Rosie Kay is a case in point, someone who I am proud to say the Free Speech Union was able to help when she was targeted for cancellation in 2021. It is fantastic to see her recover so magnificently.
I shall give the Committee some other examples. There was a case last year involving Martin Speake. He was referred to the Free Speech Union by Freedom in the Arts, with whom we have a close working relationship. Martin Speake was an internationally regarded saxophonist who was for more than two decades a jazz tutor at Trinity Laban Conservatoire in Greenwich. In February 2024, he replied to the conservatoire’s request for feedback on its diversity plan, and argued, I think reasonably, that Black musicians were not underrepresented in British jazz and that Black Lives Matter was a dangerous organisation. He quoted Martin Luther King that people, including musicians, should be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. For this, students boycotted his classes, a petition was got up demanding his removal, the London Jazz Orchestra asked him to step down, his album was put on hold, and his UK concerts were cancelled. The stress eventually forced him to resign in November 2024 from a job he had held for two decades. Happily, the Free Speech Union was able to fund an employment tribunal claim for constructive dismissal, and Trinity Laban settled in February 2026 in a way that was very satisfactory.
Another example is Gillian Philip in 2020. She is a children’s novelist who was part of the team producing the best-selling Warrior Cats series under the pen name Erin Hunter. She was dropped by her fiction packager in 2020 after adding a message of support for JK Rowling to her Twitter profile. Not only did she lose her job, but she was unable to get another job as a writer and had to retrain as a heavy goods vehicle driver.
I could come up with more and more examples, but I will close with just one recent case to come in at the Free Speech Union involving an Irish playwright based in New York called Phelim McAleer. He tried to organise a staged reading of a play about the events of 7 October 2023 in southern Israel. He tried to organise this staged reading at the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, which is subsidised by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. It is a verbatim play based on interviews with more than 100 survivors of the Hamas attack on 7 October. It had a six-week off-Broadway run and was acclaimed by the New York Post as spellbinding, but the Lyric could not find a single evening on which to stage a reading of this play, in spite of the fact that he was going to pay for it privately and even though the theatre had found numerous opportunities to platform Palestinian perspectives, including a poet who described Israel as a settler-colonialist project, a genocidal state and a pariah state. No one is suggesting that that Palestinian poet should have been no-platformed, but all voices in these debates should be heard, and the arts need to play a proper role in facilitating these discussions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on securing this debate and thank her and Freedom in the Arts for the work that they have done in highlighting these problems. Above all, as others have done, I thank those individual artists who have come forward to share their experiences. The experience of being marginalised, sidelined and silenced can be lonely and frightening, and I hope they feel a bit less lonely and frightened after today’s debate.
This has been a good debate—rational, articulate and well-informed. We do not all agree on everything, but we have all agreed very strongly about the importance of hearing diverse perspectives and differing opinions. We do so enjoying parliamentary privilege, which allows us to speak freely here. Lots of our arts and cultural organisations do not have the protections of Parliament or the legislative protections that higher education institutions have to preserve free speech, so it is right that we are vigilant in how they are applying their duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right about making sure that people are well informed on their legal responsibilities and their founding charters, as well as ensuring that trustees and others take those duties very seriously. Arts organisations have a duty to challenge, provoke and inform us, not to hector, censor or boycott.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, was right to say that, at their best, the arts enable us to see things through others’ eyes. That is why we enjoy them so much and what enriches us when we encounter them. This is particularly important when approaching contested or highly charged issues. For instance, going to a museum or a gallery would give us a different perspective, separated from time and geography, on the question of how other societies have viewed gender roles, and would remind us that conflict in the Holy Land is not a feature of this century alone.
My noble friend Lady Spielman is right to worry about whether the generation coming through the education system and coming to work in the arts will take an illiberal and censorious approach. We are, I think, past what felt like the high watermark of sensitivity readers and authors and others being objected to in writing about things of which they did not have lived experience, but we must remain vigilant on all of this because, if the closing of those minds and those discussions is a loss for us all, it is a particular loss for the generation that is coming through, which needs to be well equipped with critical and inquisitive minds in an age of mis- and disinformation online. They need to see things that challenge them and make them feel uncomfortable.
The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, was right to highlight the pressure on sponsors. I have mentioned previously in Grand Committee that, regrettably, we have seen parliamentarians in both Houses among those boycotting things such as the Hay Festival. We all regret the disappearance of sponsors such as Baillie Gifford. It means fewer, smaller, narrower literary festivals and fewer thoughts for us all.
Noble Lords were right to highlight the silent and sometimes insidious nature of these boycotts, which threaten the enlightenment values that underpin us. My noble friends Lady Meyer and Lady Spielman were right to highlight the importance of dissident and unorthodox voices, which add to our understanding.
Above all, people are right to point to the growing evidence of antisemitism that we see in the arts, as through our whole society. My noble friend Lord Polak was right to say that it is completely wrong to treat all Jewish people as the same or to make them all accountable for the actions of any particular Government of Israel. The powerful Nova Exhibition in Shoreditch, like the extremely powerful museum at Yad Vashem and the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, is a way in which the arts can help us understand the terrible atrocities to which this attitude can lead.
As my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington said, freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is essential to our free society. I am glad that we have been able to highlight these problems today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, made clear, even where individuals do not agree with each other, it is important that we have this discussion. The debate has reflected many of the issues raised by The New Boycott Crisis, which was published by Freedom in the Arts earlier this year. During the debate, I particularly welcomed the historical perspectives from the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Meyer.
I start by addressing the critical points made by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Polak, Lord Frost, Lord Doyle and Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—on the scourge of antisemitism in the arts, as highlighted in the report in stark detail, which reflects the wider and, regrettably, growing antisemitism more broadly in society. I want to make it explicitly clear that this Government find antisemitism, wherever it may raise its ugly head, both abhorrent and completely unacceptable. We will do whatever it takes to work with the Jewish community to tackle it in wider society. Antisemitism has no place in our society and, as the Prime Minister made clear in May at a summit he held on the issue, it is our shared responsibility to tackle rising antisemitism.
Since that summit, we have been working with the Arts Council on plans for an independent audit into how concerns are handled and where its systems need to be strengthened. This will focus on allegations of antisemitism, but we anticipate that its findings will strengthen the Arts Council’s handling of all concerns, and more information on this will be shared in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, cited examples of informal exclusion of Jewish arts and artists. We will make clear to ACE that the work it is doing now to tackle this issue in its audit and in its engagement with the sector should and must cover antisemitism as defined in law and the informal exclusion the noble Lord rightly highlighted.
This work by the Government is in tandem with sector-specific round tables that we are launching in partnership with the Board of Deputies. Over the next few months, these sessions will bring together Jewish representatives, DCMS officials and arm’s-length bodies, including Arts Council England, to share best practices and secure meaningful, practical commitments for the next six months. Nobody should feel unsafe, whether performing on the stage or going about their daily life. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that it is entirely unacceptable and a damning indictment of where we are as a country that an actress such as Maureen Lipman, undoubtedly one of our national treasures, has to have private security. It is completely unacceptable. The noble Lord also raised wider issues around the security of our Jewish community and pointed out that the arts do not sit separate to the rest of society. As noble Lords may be aware, the Home Office has committed record funding of £32.4 million this year to protect the Jewish communities through the Jewish community protective security grant managed by the Community Security Trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised points about potential politicisation and referenced my noble friend Lady Hodge’s review of Arts Council England. This Government remain committed to the arm’s-length principle that artistic expression, including decisions around funding and programming, should be free from political interference, but this is not the same as being free from protection. I am sure noble Lords welcomed, as I did, the Government’s response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s independent review. The response reaffirmed the arm’s-length principle and the importance of public investment in culture supporting a wide range of voices. Arts Council England supports a broad range of artistic practice and viewpoints, including actively investing in organisations that defend creative freedom. Index on Censorship is one such organisation whose work highlights and challenges censorship and the oppression of artists and creatives.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Young of Acton, raised points around artists with gender-critical views. The Government are clear that while it is right that protections from discrimination exist for LGBT+ people, such as those held in the Equality Act, this does not prohibit and should not exclude people expressing their views, opinions or beliefs, including gender-critical views. Each individual’s right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the rights of other people or those of the wider community to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, including those who are trans or who hold gender-critical views.
As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, there is a difference between what we do not like and what is illegal. My noble friend Lady Dacres highlighted the importance of challenge within arts, as did other noble Lords. Freedom of expression carries with it certain responsibilities. Cultural organisations must always comply with the law, including legislation relating to equality, discrimination and public order. When speaking up becomes hate speech, a clear and unacceptable line is crossed. However, within these legal boundaries, organisations and artists should feel confident in presenting their work.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Doyle, spoke about protests and boycotts. While the Government are wholly supportive of freedom of expression, we are equally supportive of peaceful protest. However, there is growing concern across the cultural sector about the impact of organised activist campaigns. They can include calls for exhibitions to be cancelled, performances to be withdrawn, artists to be disinvited or sponsorships terminated.
I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, about self-censorship also being an issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made similar points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Young, spoke about silent cancellations and boycotts. These boycotts, as well as the silent cancellations noted in the report, are, in the Government’s view, damaging to art and artists. We have been unequivocal in pushing back against these boycotts. Last year, the Secretary of State said:
“Boycotting sponsors, and killing these events off, is the equivalent of gagging society … we will stand against it with everything that we’ve got”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, the answer to speech that we do not like is more speech, not silence.
This Government are clear that boycotting festivals, performances and organisations harms the art, not the sponsor. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, we have a great tradition of philanthropy in this country, and the Government want to strengthen it. That is why we published a strategy on philanthropy earlier this year. As the noble Lord said, we need a mixed economy that includes private sector funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about guidance on the legal position and my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham asked about some examples of guidance and best practice. We recognise the increasing and enduring pressure that arts and cultural leaders face on this issue. In response, Arts Council England has supported the recent publication of new guidance on the matter, which I will circulate to noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. There are positive signs that the sector is grasping the nettle and rising to the challenge. Arts organisations in Manchester are tackling this head on, with Factory International spearheading the brave spaces principles. Work such as this acts as a north star in guiding organisations through the complexity of programming and sponsorship decision-making in the face of activism.
I will conclude shortly but I want to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on whether I would be willing to meet Freedom in the Arts. I would be very happy to meet the organisation, but that may need to be after the conclusion of a number of legal matters which it is currently supporting. My private office will arrange a meeting in due course.
As I have outlined, the Government recognise many of the challenges identified in the report The New Boycott Crisis. By encouraging a plurality of voices, this Government are helping to ensure that this country remains one of the world’s leading centres of artistic and cultural excellence. As my noble friend Lady Dacres said, at its best, art allows us to see people through others’ eyes. I am clear, and this Government are clear, that lawful artistic expression deserves protection, that cultural organisations should be free to make their own decisions and that our cultural life is strengthened, not weakened, by the free exchange of differing opinions and ideas.
Ukraine: Decentralisation Reforms
Lord Risby
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Ukraine’s decentralisation reforms; and what steps they are taking to support municipal partnerships as a contribution to Ukraine’s recovery, resilience and reconstruction.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to have secured this debate today. We are likely to be approaching a turning point in this war, and the situation requires us to consider how we can underpin Ukraine’s future and facilitate its European trajectory.
It was my role for the Opposition in the other place to take forward the legislation for the expansion of the European Union. At the time, there was here in London a particularly impressive Polish ambassador who spoke with great prescience. Several times he said to me that if we did not embrace the country immediately to Poland’s east, someone with very large claws would attempt to smother it. How tragically right history has proved him to be. Since February 2022, we have seen those claws at work, with the horrors of a full-scale war that is now raged against Ukraine. Having recently returned from a visit to Kyiv, and most specifically the Chernihiv region, which borders Belarus and Russia, I start by noting that resilience remains very strong.
Ukraine is now emerging as one of the most militarily experienced, innovative and resilient nations in the world today. I do not wish for this debate to be a continuing commentary about the military situation on the battlefield, for what struck me most powerfully was that when I met my counterparts, they did not wish to dwell on the war. They wanted to showcase their resilience but, most importantly, their plans for locally enabled, investment-based recovery. They wanted to speak not only of how Ukraine recovers and prospers but of how Ukraine can emerge, as I believe it will, as a significant global force for good in the years to come. It is in this spirit that I turn to decentralisation.
As the former chairman of the British Ukrainian society, I have long promoted the need for decentralisation, regarding it as fundamental to democratic empowerment and the elimination of corruption, and to accelerating Ukraine’s accession to the European Union and it embracing the wider European family. Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine had already made progress in this regard, and we should not underestimate how the progress made between 2014 and 2022 in the creation and empowerment of regional and local municipalities was a defining factor in Ukraine’s ability to withstand this ghastly war over such a significant period of time.
We should now turn to supporting Ukraine’s desire to continue on its pathway to much greater decentralisation. This could become one of the great practical legacies of the 100-year partnership. Under Pillar 9 of that declaration, our two countries are committed to supporting
“deeper and more nationwide links between local and regional governments”.
I use this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Kent With Ukraine, an NGO with which I am proud to be associated. Under the voluntary leadership of Jordan Meade, that organisation has, in just two years, helped to secure significantly active partnerships, stemming from region-to-region partnerships and twinning at every other tier in the country. This voluntary work is to be commended; I am sure we will agree that the 100-year partnership must be enabled by government, but built up from the grass roots. I offer the Minister four practical suggestions on how we may take this forward and achieve it.
First, the Government could establish a live public register of UK-Ukraine local and regional partnerships. At present, the landscape is far too fragmented and council leaders are slow in wanting to pursue relations without clearer government endorsement. A register could help to identify gaps, match donors to need, give SMEs confidence to invest in local projects and, importantly, allow Parliament to scrutinise progress under Pillar 9.
Secondly, the Government could support the creation of a platform that links municipal twinning to practical reconstruction pipelines. A structured platform could enable communities to undertake real and practical projects. This would help Ukraine, but it could also create opportunities for British SMEs to secure investments and contracts for reconstruction, which in turn would create much-needed opportunities for local growth here at home.
Thirdly, the Government should consider creating a municipal aid corridor. That would make it easier and safer for councils and public bodies to donate surplus equipment to verified Ukrainian municipal recipients.
Finally, the Government might also consider establishing a dedicated local government fund that would enable local authorities in the UK to bid for modest one-off grants to empower businesses, schools, cultural organisations and community groups to take part in furthering the key objectives of Pillar 9.
The Ukrainians themselves want these relationships to be reciprocal. There is much we can learn from Ukraine’s local leaders, particularly around civil contingencies, emergency planning and resilience. Against the backdrop of local government reorganisation, Ukraine’s experience could be studied carefully here to reform and strengthen our own structures.
I turn briefly to the important matter of veterans’ reintegration. While in Kyiv, I was pleased to meet the deputy Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, and just yesterday I was pleased to host both the Minister and deputy Minister here in our Parliament to brief parliamentarians on the growing challenges around Ukraine’s veteran population. I mention this as veterans’ policy could become an excellent test case for a decentralised Ukraine. It could demonstrate the model of national standards and local delivery.
The Ukrainian state should set clear national entitlements, standards and safeguards for rehabilitation, mental health, transport and mobility, employment, housing adaptation, family support and disability rights. But delivery must be made locally, through the oblasts. I raise this in the hope that the Government will build decentralisation into future funding programmes for Ukraine.
In the classrooms that I visited in the far north-east of Ukraine, there are murals of this Parliament on the walls, which are used as a reference point for freedom and democracy. This should humble and inspire us all. In Ukraine, constant gratitude was expressed for Britain’s support, but the clear desire at all levels is for Britain to be an influential long-term partner. As the Minister knows, one of the great strengths of our Parliament is that Ukraine continues to be supported by all parties. That unity is noted and deeply appreciated; it is so important.
The challenge before us is to turn the 100-year partnership from declaration into enduring delivery. This will be better achieved if we enable a grass-roots approach to this endeavour and support Ukraine’s decentralisation as a key component in its recovery.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing this important debate; I am only sorry that so few of us are in the Room for it. I also pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to Ukraine, which gives considerable weight and importance to everything he has said.
I spent many years in local government, including serving as the leader of a council and as a deputy mayor of London, so I thought I would come at this debate from a slightly different perspective. I have always believed in the importance of localism and the opportunities that come through decentralised decision-making. While it is of course up to the Government to establish national priorities, it is usually local government that ultimately determines how successfully those priorities are delivered on the ground. That is why the pathway to the decentralisation that Ukraine commenced back in 2014 must now be delivered on fully.
Despite the fact that Ukraine is literally fighting for its very existence, democratic local government continues to function across the overwhelming majority of the country. Where that is not possible, military administrations running in parallel in the cities provide the additional attention that is needed.
Through this system, local leaders across Ukraine, who are deserving of our admiration, have proven how decentralised decision-making has enabled local leaders to respond quickly and more humanely than any national Government could ever do. In many respects, from the continuation of education to the reconstruction of community assets and the maintenance of social services provision, local government has come to be one of Ukraine’s greatest strengths.
As we now rightfully turn our attention towards Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, I believe that there is an area where the United Kingdom can make a distinctive contribution through our experience. That area is, I suggest, public procurement. While I note that it might not sound as exciting as funding the latest AI-empowered systems or advanced warfare, anyone who has been involved in a local authority knows that ultimately sound procurement is the bedrock of efficient local government. British local authorities have accumulated decades of experience in commissioning services, running competitive tenders and ensuring proper financial oversight. We have learned over these decades, sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way, the formula of balancing speed and innovation with accountability and sound governance.
Ukraine now faces the largest reconstruction programme seen anywhere in Europe, possibly even in the world, since the Second World War. It will require not only significant international investment but procurement systems capable of delivering thousands of projects simultaneously while ensuring international credibility, which is so important. I believe there is considerable scope for structured partnership between the procurement professionals of our local authorities and their Ukrainian counterparts. From strategic commissioning to supplier assurance, social value, fraud prevention and counter-corruption measures, local authorities have often learned the hard way but have developed the expertise that is the essential building block for attracting and securing long-term international investment, with investors being able to see that their money is being deployed correctly.
There is a security element in this too. We need to deploy our expertise in public sector procurement to ensure that rogue states and individuals are unable to secure any foothold in the critical national infrastructure and local utility projects that Ukraine is currently seeking international support to deliver. Will the Minister outline to the Committee what steps the Government are taking to export British local government procurement expertise to support Ukrainian municipalities as they prepare to manage billions of pounds in reconstruction funds? Have the Government considered the possibility of co-ordinating a UK-Ukraine local government procurement partnership? Building on the work of the City Ukraine Hub and the commitments contained in the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, I hope we are soon going to see the City of London play a leading role in strengthening Ukraine’s financial ecosystem. In the discussions I have had with Ukrainians, the message is always that they seek to have mutually beneficial relations.
There is also much that Britain can learn from Ukraine. I have been struck by the extraordinary speed with which Ukraine has restored national critical infrastructure, such as rail networks, bridges and utilities, under missile and drone attack. It slightly puts us to shame on projects such as High Speed 2 and the Lower Thames Crossing. While our circumstances are thankfully very different, I believe there are lessons. As we seek to accelerate housing delivery, modernise infrastructure and improve our public services, we should not be afraid to study how Ukraine has reduced bureaucracy, slashed waste and embraced innovation. Sometimes, those operating under the greatest pressure develop the most effective solutions, and local government would be foolish not to use our exceptional friendship with Ukraine to be radical in our approach to reforming our systems, both here and there.
As the Government embark on a significant programme of local government reorganisation—probably the biggest in decades—I hope that they will place far greater emphasis on civil contingencies and local resilience. Although much attention is rightly given to national defence, history reminds us that resilience begins in our communities. Since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated how, when resilience and emergency planning are valued and managed effectively at a very local level, communities are able to withstand the most challenging circumstances. It would be good to know what lessons from Ukraine’s exceptional resilience models the Government are going to draw on as part of our own reviews.
My noble friend Lord Risby rightly commented on twinning. It is encouraging to see not only how many council leaders across the country have shown solidarity through establishing twinning relations but the practical differences that these hyper-local arrangements are having both for Ukrainian municipalities and our own communities. Many of these relationships are now in place. I am told that there is a desire to move these relationships well beyond traditional civic twinning to provide genuine partnership that shares expertise, supports SMEs in both the UK and Ukraine and utilises the provision of the FTA that we have in place.
Earlier this week, I was very pleased to meet the Minister and Deputy Minister for Veterans here in Parliament. It was so encouraging to hear about the efforts they are putting into ensuring not only that there is a world-leading rehabilitation programme in place but that the work that is under way will ensure the full economic reintegration of these veterans. As we all know, that is going to be critical for the future stability of Ukraine.
I conclude by saying that Britain has much to contribute through our experience of local government procurement, financial governance and local leadership. Equally, though, we should approach this with some humility, recognising that Ukraine’s resilience and remarkable pace of delivery has lessons for us. If we get this right and make the 100-year partnership more community-based, I have no doubt that both countries will emerge stronger.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Risby for securing this valuable debate. Last week, in our debate on the Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine, my noble friend Lord Callanan noted that, while the war continues, it is right that we look to the future of Ukraine. I will not repeat our overall position on support for Ukraine, as my noble friend set it out very clearly last week, but the Official Opposition will always support the Government in backing Ukraine in the face of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Across the House and across political divides, we must all work hard to maintain the consensus in support of the Ukrainian people.
As my noble friend Lord Risby mentioned, since 2014, the decentralisation process in Ukraine has progressed significantly, strengthening local self-governance and improving the Ukrainian state’s ability to deliver public services. That process has established local governments across Ukraine that retains more than half of the tax collected in their area. This means that more money stays in the communities where it is collected, and it should be spent to the benefit of local residents. Can the Minister say whether His Majesty’s Government are monitoring the impact of the reorganisation of government in Ukraine and its impact on the quality of the public services that are available to the Ukrainian people?
Support for Ukraine should not stop at funding and military training. Our strong tradition of democracy and effective local governance means that there may be relevant skills that we can share with Ukraine. Can the Minister say what conversations have taken place to ensure that we are making the local government expertise here in the UK available to Ukraine?
Although significant progress has been made, third parties report that there remain significant challenges around skills shortages in the Civil Service. What consideration have Ministers given to that? Are there steps that His Majesty’s Government can take, in concert with our international partners, to support Ukraine on the skills gaps it is experiencing within government?
The UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Risby, is without question ambitious. However, ambition alone does not deliver results. Given that it is the intention of the Government for this partnership to ensure for a century, do the Government agree that Parliament should have greater opportunity to scrutinise delivery under each of the partnership’s pillars? In this spirit, will His Majesty’s Government commit to an annual report on the progress and expenditure incurred?
Today, we have spoken much about our local councils and the incredible work they are doing to stand by the people of Ukraine. However, reconstruction will require local economic recovery. It would, therefore, be helpful to understand what role His Majesty’s Government see for the British Chambers of Commerce, SMEs and local enterprise partnerships in supporting the effort to rebuild local economies across the region. Will His Majesty’s Government consider launching a UK-Ukraine 100 website and digital archive for successes under the UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership declaration? That would serve to showcase successes and inspire councils, schools, civil society groups and others to get involved.
The demonstrations that saw the fall of Yanukovych’s Government were fuelled by a collapse of trust in the Ukrainian Government. Those Ukrainians, who had such high hopes of a brighter future for Ukraine, have suffered much since then. We all share that hope for a brighter future, and we will work with the Government as they support this work. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for securing this debate. I know that it has not been the biggest draw of the day, as far as Parliament is concerned, but the quality of the contributions has more than made up for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, made some thoughtful suggestions based on his extensive experience of working in Ukraine. I promise him that we will continue to look at ways to work with our Ukrainian friends as part of our commitment set out in the 100-year partnership and that we will explore his various suggestions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for his important contribution. Having a short debate is great because we can name each properly and not just say, “All those present”.
The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia continues to cause immense pain and suffering. I absolutely accept the encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Risby, not to focus on only conflict, but, last week, Russia launched around 500 drones and 70 missiles, aimed primarily at Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians and injuring nearly 90. The scale of damage from more than four years of war is, of course, enormous. The latest World Bank assessment is that around $588 billion will be required for recovery and reconstruction over the next decade.
Early recovery and development support are therefore critical if we are to prevent Ukraine falling into decline, poverty and instability. This is an agenda to which we are fully committed and, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said, it is entirely cross-party. Through the UK’s historic and wide-ranging 100-year partnership with Ukraine, we are deepening relations across the social, cultural, education and trade sectors to ensure a more prosperous and secure long-term future for both our countries. The entire premise of having a 100-year partnership is so that it is all-encompassing.
Already 54,000 British and Ukrainian pupils are set to benefit from the school-twinning programme under the 100-year partnership. The suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Risby, of a register of partnerships, a platform to link communities, a municipal aid corridor and a local government fund for grants to support partnerships were all excellent and implementable, and we will of course consider them thoroughly. Not all of them need the Government to do them. In the true nature of the spirit of entrepreneurship that you often find in local government in this country and in Ukraine, some of those things can happen in any case.
Democratic institutions, including Ukraine’s Parliament and civil society, will play a key role in Ukraine’s recovery. Co-operation between the Ukrainian Government, Parliament and civil society, along with international partners, will help to ensure Ukraine’s democratic resilience. Ukraine’s decentralisation reforms have strengthened the ability of local authorities to deliver public services, respond to crises and lead recovery efforts, even in the most challenging wartime conditions. Strong local government will remain essential to rebuilding communities, strengthening resilience and supporting Ukraine’s future Euro-Atlantic integration.
The UK recognises that recovery and reform must go hand in hand. Continued progress on governance, anti-corruption, judicial reform and decentralisation will help Ukraine attract investment, strengthen institutions and support its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdansk alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the conference, the Foreign Secretary announced our package of bilateral assistance for 2026-27, worth almost £290 million, to bolster Ukraine’s recovery and energy security. We also announced a further $1 billion of fiscal support through the World Bank, demonstrating our long-term commitment to Ukraine’s reconstruction. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that £12 million of this package is for a new governance programme, including £2.4 million for anti-corruption initiatives.
The UK has consistently supported a recovery that is inclusive, accountable and, above all, led by Ukraine, with civil society playing a central role in shaping, supporting and scrutinising that recovery. However, we recognise that recovery cannot be delivered from Kyiv alone. Action at local and regional level was a core theme of this year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference, recognising that local communities are best placed to identify priorities and lead reconstruction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, said, Ukrainian civil society organisations were among the first to step forward after Russia’s full-scale invasion. They continue to support those most affected by the war, including the communities that are hardest to reach. This is where municipal partnerships can make a real difference. I completely agree with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, made. Like him, I have served in local government and learned a huge amount from that experience that I use every single day in my current role. It is these partnerships that help local authorities deliver better services, learn from each other’s experience and build the foundations for long-term recovery.
The UK is backing that approach in practice. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, asked how we are doing this. We are using our humanitarian assistance and resilience programme to strengthen the role of civil society and community groups in delivering support on the ground. Through the UK-led multi-donor Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine we directly strengthen local authorities in Ukraine’s front-line regions to ensure that local governments remain visible, responsible, and, most importantly, trusted by their local residents.
Through our social protection programme, SPIRIT, we are helping Ukraine move from emergency response into long-term recovery, supporting reform, strengthening social services and helping Ukrainian municipalities—I will just call them that—to work together to meet local needs. Working with UNICEF and the NGO ISAR Ednannia, we are supporting around 100 municipalities and 120 local providers. This support is leaving a lasting legacy, helping municipalities build the skills, partnerships and systems that they need to sustain recovery long after individual grants end.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked for regular reporting and suggested a platform to showcase work that is happening, which are excellent ideas. Let us see what we can take forward.
As we say every time we talk about Ukraine, the UK stands with Ukraine in its journey towards a just and lasting peace and in its efforts to rebuild. Ensuring that Ukraine emerges from this war as a stronger, more resilient, more prosperous country is just as important as supporting its defence today. Ukraine’s recovery will be built through not only international investments but strong institutions, empowered local communities and the determination of the Ukrainian people. The UK remains committed to that effort and to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
International Development Outcomes for Women and Girls
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of cuts to Official Development Assistance on international development outcomes for women and girls.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to bring forward this debate and I thank all noble Lords who will speak. Although speaking time is unfortunately short, I hope that today’s interest leads to further opportunities to examine the impact of cuts to official development assistance. I declare my interests, as set out on the register, of support from the Coalition for Global Prosperity, and my position as chair of Plan International UK.
Since the Government announced ODA cuts, many in this House have challenged the logic: defence and development are not competing priorities but mutually reinforcing. This is a political choice, with devastating consequences, which undermines the UK’s ambitions and commitments. The cuts are not felt on paper or in government strategy documents; they are felt in the daily lives of millions among the most fragile communities globally, especially women and girls, who disproportionately bear the consequences.
Despite progress, and thanks in no small part to the work of UK development, the scale of the challenge globally remains staggering: 840 million women have been victims of physical or sexual violence; every two minutes, a woman dies from pregnancy or childbirth complications; and 133 million girls are not in school. Crises, be they conflict, climate or health, hit women and girls hardest. Violence increases, including sexual violence as a weapon of war, trafficking and early and forced marriage. In Sudan alone, 17.1 million women and girls now need humanitarian assistance, and 4.3 million have been displaced. According to ICAI, at the current pace, ending gender-based violence and achieving equality for women and girls will take another 100 years, so for the UK to be stepping back is deeply regrettable.
I welcome the Government’s new international strategic framework on women and girls, particularly its focus on SRHR and integration across health, education and survivor support. I also welcome the inclusion of women and girls as one of the FCDO’s six refreshed priorities. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for their efforts in international fora and in the difficult—if regrettable—decisions around ODA allocations. As we face another change in No. 10 in the coming weeks, I hope that they can both continue this important work. The Government deserve credit for their target of 90% of bilateral ODA programmes contributing to gender equality by 2030. This is a significant commitment that builds on our positive track record on gender equality reporting. I hope that when the bilateral allocations are published shortly, the Government will have a clear assessment of progress towards that commitment.
All that said, I am afraid that that is where the plaudits end and the questions begin. The Government have said that mainstreaming women and girls’ rights should be built into decisions across the entire portfolio, yet significant concerns remain around mainstreaming, given evidence of mixed results of mainstreaming across different contexts. As the Gender and Development Network warns, poorly executed mainstreaming can dilute efforts, divert resources or become a tick-box exercise. I hope that the Minister will consider the network’s clear and tangible recommendations for a more effective approach. In addition to mainstreaming, is the Minister able to provide reassurances that the Government still see value in dedicated, stand-alone programmes for women and girls? Will they protect at least the current 12% of ODA allocated to gender equality?
When it comes to dedicated programmes that have been successful, there is no better example, in my mind, than that of the women’s integrated sexual health programme—WISH—which has transformed access to sexual and reproductive health and rights services for the poorest women and girls across 27 countries in Africa and Asia. Reaching over 6 million women and girls since 2018, it has averted nearly 37,000 maternal deaths, prevented 3.85 million unsafe abortions and helped 300,000 girls and young women stay in school. However, with centrally managed programmes expected to be cut by approximately 42% and to be replaced with “communities of expertise”, we need much greater clarity from the Government about what will happen to these programmes and how the women and equalities community of expertise will work. With funding cuts and life-saving SRHR service delivery being scaled down or closing, people in remote areas will have nowhere to access reproductive health services, women will be forced to continue pregnancies they were unable to avoid, teenage pregnancy will rise, girls will be denied an education, and death rates will rise.
There are actions that the Government can take to improve their effectiveness and help mitigate the worst outcomes for women and girls. The first step is robust accountability. The new commitment to gender mainstreaming should be operationalised in a way that sets clear objectives through incentive structures, develops institutional capacity and resources, and creates feedback mechanisms with women’s organisations. The second step is to set well-defined levels of high ambition. The FCDO should set clear priorities for heads of mission on women and girls, backed by necessary political heft. This should go hand in hand with the UK maintaining a strategic approach across its diplomatic corps and Armed Forces to put gender equality on the front lines of crisis response.
The UK should continue to support key multilateral bodies such as the UNFPA. In the context of a global rollback on reproductive rights, the UK must continue its important support and make its voice heard to protect the UNFPA’s mandate. But we must also ensure that our other significant multilateral contributions, to other UN institutions, to Gavi and the Global Fund, to the World Bank and regional development banks, are used as effectively as possible to benefit women and girls. As ODA shifts toward multilaterals, accountability for spending aligned with UK priorities becomes even more critical. The commitment to 90% relates only to the reducing bilateral portfolio; I would love to see this commitment extended to multilaterals.
Finally, the UK has a unique opportunity next year with the presidency of the G20. I hope the Government seize this chance to embed gender equality as a central theme of the summit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that gender is effectively mainstreamed across the agenda, particularly on the finance track, given the evidence on the gendered effects of debt burdens, the wider rollback on rights internationally, and the sharp reduction in financing for gender equality work globally?
I will end with an example of what the cuts to ODA mean in practice—not in the abstract, but in reality for women and children. Earlier this year, “Channel 4 News” broadcast a special report, “A Matter of Life or Death: Giving Birth in Sierra Leone”, filmed over one week inside the busiest maternity corridors in Freetown. It is challenging to watch but shows exactly what is now at stake for women and babies as UK aid funding recedes. I urge noble Lords and the Minister to watch it, if she has not already.
The report focused on the saving lives programme, a health systems-strengthening initiative delivered in partnership with Concern Worldwide. Progress has been made in a country with one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates, but that progress is now at risk. The cuts are having real consequences: fewer services, shortages of essential medicines and weaker emergency referral systems. At a time when postpartum haemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal death, these changes will cost lives.
This is what happens when funding is withdrawn from programmes that work. Women and babies are placed at greater risk from preventable causes because health systems are being weakened—and without time to put alternatives in place. I call on the Government to publish a full assessment of the impact of ODA reductions on maternal and newborn survival before any further cuts are made, not after the damage has been done.
Investing in development outcomes for women and girls is the right thing to do. It is also the smartest and quickest route to economic growth, improved health outcomes and global stability. I hope the Government act with the urgency that this demands and do everything in their power to mitigate the impact of the cuts on the women and girls who face the greatest risk from them.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for arranging this debate today. I also thank Concern Worldwide, Planned Parenthood, CAFOD, Action Aid and many other organisations which were kind enough to get in touch with me, as with others, about this debate.
The scale of the reduction in official development assistance that we debate here is significant and will drop to the lowest share since 1999. Most of our overseas gender focus will be affected if sitting within our bilateral programmes, which are being reduced significantly by 37%. The Government’s own equalities impact assessment recognises that this will fall disproportionately on programmes supporting equality for women and girls. I make no apology for talking about women and girls; they are the future of the world, not just here but everywhere.
Regarding women, peace and security, an area which I have worked on for many years and will continue to do so as an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, I welcome the Government’s decision to protect central funding for the WPS agenda, and for preventing sexual violence in conflict, at 2025-26 levels. However, I note that a planned increase to the women, peace and security programme has itself been cut by 25%, at a time when the Commons International Development Committee has found that:
“The Government’s commitment to … the WPS National Action Plan … appears to be waning”.
Producing a budget at last year’s level, while welcome in the current climate, is not the same as the funding on it. I hope the Minister will confirm that this is a momentary pause.
I also hope that when we are leading the G20, we will continue at its meetings to be powerful on the importance of women being at the peace table, when we can ensure that this will happen. At present, that is not happening anywhere around the world, and we have to take that leadership.
I remind the Committee that these numbers are not hypothetical and have real-world impacts on women and girls around the world. The women’s integrated sexual health programme was described by the Government as “relatively protected”, yet its delivery partner, International Planned Parenthood Federation, now faces a 22% funding reduction for a programme that has helped to avert more than 1,000 maternal deaths. IPPF’s projection is that a cut of this size will put the lives of mothers and babies at risk. I hope that the Minister will say more about how the Government intend to prevent this pattern being repeated elsewhere.
I welcome the commitment that 90% of the FCDO’s bilateral programmes will contribute to gender equality by 2023. As the new communities of expertise model is developed, I hope that women’s rights organisations, particularly those with direct experience in fragile and conflict-affected states, will be consulted as full partners, as we know that the inclusion of local women at every stage of the consulting process leads to a better outcome all round in their society.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for bringing this important debate. During my years as International Development Minister and as the Government’s champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas, people often asked me what I would remember the most. It is not meetings or briefing papers but faces. One face that has never left me still comes back to me whenever we have debates like this. I was visiting a Marie Stopes outreach clinic in Uganda for women who had suffered sexual and domestic violence that we were supporting. It provided family planning and reproductive healthcare, but it was also a place of refuge. Since all the officials and dignitaries who surrounded me were men, I asked them to leave so that I could sit in a circle with the women alone. One woman arrived late carrying her baby. I say “carrying”, but both her arms had been cut off by her husband with a machete, one below the elbow, one above, and she cradled her child with what remained. For that woman, British development assistance was not an abstract policy; it was the difference between hope and despair—the difference between finding help and finding none.
That visit reinforced what I came to believe as a Minister: that women and girls are not a peripheral part of development but its foundation. I learned that, when women and girls thrive, whole communities thrive. Educate a girl and she is more likely to earn, to marry later, to have healthier children and to lift her family out of poverty. Protect a woman from violence, and you do more than change one life; you strengthen a family, a community and ultimately a nation. That is why investing in women and girls has never been an optional extra. It is one of the smartest investments that any country could ever make. That is why today’s debate matters.
The Government’s assessment recognises that reducing official development assistance will have negative effects for women and girls. My concern is that those impacts are not simply figures in a report; they are people. They mean that fewer girls will complete their education, fewer women will access maternal and reproductive health care, fewer survivors of violence will find safety and support, and fewer local women’s organisations will be able to keep their doors open for those with nowhere else to turn. The Government say that women and girls remain a priority, and I welcome that commitment, but I have to say that priorities are measured not only by what we say but by what we sustain. When the Government assess the impact of these reductions, how will they measure the women and girls who will no longer receive the opportunities, protection and support that Britain once helped to provide? Behind every programme we reduce, there is a woman or girl we may never meet whose life will be changed by our decision.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, not for the first time the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, deserves our gratitude for concentrating our minds on victims and survivors of international crimes, especially on women and girls in need of access to life-sustaining support. In my three minutes, I will focus on Sudan and Nigeria.
Sudan is facing a second genocide in two decades. This includes a war on women, which I referred to on Tuesday during Question Time and will do so again on Friday next week in my debate on the Genocide Determination Bill. Targeted, unspeakable violence, systemic use of rape as a weapon of war, extreme famine and catastrophic displacement mean that millions of Sudanese women and girls are plunged into peril. As the noble Baroness told us, 17 million women and girls in Sudan are now in need of assistance.
A truly shocking UN report on CRSV in Sudan reports that women whom it interviewed in West Darfur were being asked, before being raped, which tribe they belonged to. One replied, “Masalit”. The perpetrators said they would kill her. Another, before being subjected to gang rape, was told:
“‘If you are Masalit, we will slaughter you today’ … Others were told, ‘You will be our wives’, ‘You slave’, ‘You are our women,’ and ‘This year, all of you Masalit girls deliver our children’”.
If these women somehow survive, they will need sustained help but also justice, which has been absent since the first genocide in Darfur some 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, in Nigeria, whole communities have been targeted by Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province and Fulani militia. They target girls, often abducting them from schools. The Minister knows and has responded to me about the case of Leah Sharibu, who, eight years ago, aged 14, was kidnapped, impregnated, raped, forcibly married and told to convert. She remains unrescued in captivity. Last November, more than 300 children, many of them girls, and staff, were kidnapped by gunmen from a Catholic school in central Nigeria in one of the worst mass abductions the country has seen. Such attacks are common, but they receive too little attention.
In this context, in 2024, UK officials considered increasing our ambition on support for the protection of civilians, including atrocity prevention. An internal options paper outlined four broad options for scaling up protections of civilians and establishing an international protection mechanism. Of the options, the FCDO opted to take the fourth and least-ambitious option.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry—I know this is unconventional—but that is factually incorrect. That did not happen, and I want to make that clear to the Committee at this point.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, but what I said is based on information provided to me by officials who work in her department. It is said that the
“FCDO opted to take the fourth – and least ambitious – option … FCDO stakeholders … recognised the value of supporting locally led protection of civilians interventions, but stated that an already overstretched country team did not have the capacity to take on a complex new programming area. This has constrained the UK’s ability to support stronger protection results”,
inevitably.
Clearly, we owe it to girls like Leah and the women and girls of Sudan to be more ambitious. Given the Minister’s intervention just now, I hope that it will be possible to sit down with her and talk through those previous ambitions, which were rejected, and see what can be done for others in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for bringing this debate. I will focus on violence against women and girls. As we have heard, the fundamental concern here is whether the reduction in UK ODA can be achieved without significant consequences for women and girls. The Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges that the reduction in ODA
“will inevitably have negative impacts for many programme beneficiaries”.
I state the obvious here that women and girls constitute at least 50% of the world’s population. When we talk about these issues, I often feel as though we are talking about something that affects a minority group, which would still not be acceptable, but sometimes we need to state the obvious.
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to maintain central spending on preventing violence against women and girls, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and women, peace and security programmes. However, UN Women reports that global aid cuts totalling an estimated $78 billion are severely impacting efforts to end violence against women and girls, with around one-third of organisations suspending programmes and over 40% reducing vital services such as shelters, legal aid and psychological support. This is tragic.
From a faith perspective, ending gender-based violence is a priority across the Anglican Communion, and many churches and communities are being trained to respond to abuse, support survivors and change harmful social norms. There is much more we can and should do. I pay tribute to the Mothers’ Union, an Anglican, women-led movement of around 4 million members in 83 countries that works at grass-roots level to tackle violence, poverty and injustice. For many vulnerable women, particularly in remote communities, Mothers’ Union branches provide practical support, literacy training, economic empowerment and protection from abuse. Indeed, faith-based organisations are often among the few institutions that are present in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Where age reduction leads to fewer partnerships with trusted local organisations, women and girls may lose access to critical support networks.
Will the Minister say what steps the FCDO is taking to remove barriers to funding for faith-based organisations working to prevent gender-based violence, and what engagement it has had with them on the impact of funding cuts? The measure of our development policy is not simply what we say about gender equality but what women and girls are unable to live—lives marked by greater safety, opportunity and dignity. At a time of significant reductions in aid spending, it is all the more important that we keep those women and girls at the heart of our decision-making and ask whether our choices are helping them to flourish.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for securing this debate and for her steadfast commitment to women and girls affected by conflict. Conscious of the time limit, I will focus on one issue: conflict-related sexual violence. For survivors, the reduction in official development assistance is not merely an accounting exercise; it determines whether a woman who has been raped receives life-saving medical treatment, protection and a chance of justice. The evidence is clear: we are going backwards.
Physicians for Human Rights has documented the consequences of abrupt reductions in international assistance. Across Ethiopia, DRC, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, clinicians report shortages of post-exposure prophylaxis following rape, interruptions to post-rape care, the closure of one-stop centres and the collapse of referral pathways. Survivors are being denied emergency treatment when they need it most. These are not marginal reductions; they are dismantling the system on which survivors depend, leaving women who have been raped searching in vain for life-saving medicines. As a result, they are becoming victims twice over—first at the hands of those who committed these crimes and then through the withdrawal of the assistance on which their recovery entirely depends.
Political leadership matters too. When my noble friend Lord Hague founded the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, he understood that this was not only a humanitarian issue but a strategic one. I had the privilege, as his special adviser, of accompanying him to meetings with Heads of States, Foreign Ministers and other senior leaders. Whatever the purpose of the meeting, he raised this issue. It had an impact, because when a Foreign Secretary speaks, counterparts listen. It becomes a matter of foreign policy and national security. That access to the highest level of government, combined with the authority of the office, gave Britain influence far beyond the resources we committed. It demonstrated that these crimes mattered to our country and that we would work to hold perpetrators to account.
I therefore welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to lead the new international coalition to end violence against women and girls, and the recent appointment of the new PSVI special envoy. However, I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would personally take on this role—not because of the individual appointed, for whom I have the greatest respect, but because the authority of the office sends an unmistakable signal that this remains a foreign policy priority for the United Kingdom. No one disputes the pressures on the public finances, the threat from Russia, the challenges posed by China or the demands on our country at home and abroad, but preventing conflict-related sexual violence is not separate from our foreign policy but an integral part of it. The perpetrators of these crimes watch what we do. When they see retreat, they see opportunity. If we fail to confront this evil where it begins, we will confront its consequences later, with greater instability, displacement, migration and far greater cost. Prevention costs less than crisis management. More importantly, it is the right thing to do.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on securing this important debate and for ensuring that the well-being of vulnerable women and girls remains firmly on our agenda. In my role as a former vice-chair and trustee of the British Red Cross, I was closely involved in programmes supporting mothers and babies affected by conflict.
I begin with the story of Marie, shared in evidence to the International Development Committee on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Marie, a mother of four and heavily pregnant, was displaced by conflict and separated from her husband. She was told she needed a caesarean section but could not afford the $70 fee at her local clinic. Unable even to feed her family, she walked for days to reach a hospital where the operation would be free, risking both childbirth and armed violence along the way. Marie’s story is not an isolated tragedy; it is what happens when maternal and reproductive healthcare is out of reach.
I recognise the difficult fiscal choices facing the Government. I welcome their commitment to return to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance when fiscal conditions allow, and their ambition for 90% of bilateral aid programmes to advance gender equality by 2030. The Government deserve credit for holding to that under pressure, yet the need has never been greater. Between 2019 and 2022, women’s rights stagnated or declined in 40% of countries, affecting around 1 billion women and girls. In 2023, around 260,000 women died from complications of pregnancy and childbirth—almost all from preventable causes, with the overwhelming majority occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2024, 92% of verified victims of conflict-related sexual violence were women and girls.
For women like Marie, gender equality is not an abstract policy objective. She experiences it when the caesarean section is free and accessible, when a clinic holds supplies for haemorrhage and infection, and when a skilled midwife or a doctor is available when every minute matters. It is hard to listen to these stories. We all know that—we have heard it from our colleagues. I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would consider publishing a disaggregated annual report on sexual and reproductive health outcomes within the UK official development assistance, so that reproductive health for women and girls in conflict zones is treated as the emergency it is.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests: I co-chair and run the APPG on Women, Peace and Security, I am on the steering board of the PSVI, I run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum and I am an honorary colonel in CIMIC. I too thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for introducing this important debate today.
As we have heard, in the poorest countries women are always the poorest of the poor. The Red Cross reports over 130 active conflicts in the world today, with women disproportionately affected. Estimates by the WHO indicate that one in three women globally have been subjected to physical or sexual violence.
The international development budget is being cut to less than half of the pre-Covid amount—a political choice—causing much of Britain’s soft power to be abandoned by pitching defence against development. France, Germany and the USA, who, together with the UK, presented two-thirds of global aid spending, are also slashing development spend. Who will fill the gap? Perhaps it will be nations which do not share our idea of democracy.
The UN now estimates that 239 million people will need humanitarian support in 2026. Women and girls in conflict zones, refugee camps and disaster-hit regions are, as ever, among the most exposed when the safety net thins. The FCDO’s own equalities impact assessment found that reductions in bilateral aid will have a negative impact on equalities—in short, the Government already admit that the cuts will hurt women and girls.
The Foreign Secretary’s decision to
“make support for women and girls … a priority for development”
is most welcome, along with the commitment that at least 90% of FCDO bilateral aid programmes will contribute to gender by 2030. However, bilateral aid has been more heavily cut, with multilateral spend being prioritised. This means the UK cannot guarantee how the money will be spent.
This all feels like a broken promise; for years we have called ourselves a global leader on gender equality. Ensuring more women in the workplace helps lift countries out of poverty. Educating girls lowers infant mortality rates and reduces early marriages, but the UK is abandoning the funding of education. It is estimated that globally, 130 million girls are out of school, four times more than boys.
The UK has also reduced its contributions to UNFPA by 85%, risking additional maternal and child deaths and stopping the ability to prevent approximately 14.6 million unintended pregnancies. With education, gender and equality programming spending having fallen by about 42%, Bond, the umbrella organisation for UK development organisations, has said that women and girls will pay the highest price for this Government’s spending choices. As Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, put it when the Government confirmed their multi-year allocations,
“there will be no winners from unrelenting aid cuts, just different degrees of losers”.
Melinda Gates famously stated that supporting women and girls in international development is essential because they are highly effective catalysts for global change. Britain built its reputation as a global leader on this work over decades. It is being undone in a few budget cycles. The choice of whether that happens is still, in part, ours to make.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for initiating this important debate today. I declare my interest as founder, chairman and trustee of the Loomba Foundation and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the United Nations Global Goals.
For nearly three decades, the Loomba Foundation has worked to improve the lives of widows and their children, especially girls, through education, skills training, economic empowerment and international advocacy. There are almost 300 million widows worldwide, which is confirmed by UN Women. Many millions live in extreme poverty and face discrimination, dispossession and harmful traditional practices simply because they have lost their husbands. The consequences extend far beyond the widows themselves, disproportionately affecting their children, especially girls, through lost education, reduced opportunity and entrenched poverty. If we are serious about achieving the sustainable development goals on ending poverty and hunger, ensuring good health, quality education, gender equality, decent work, reduced inequalities and peace and justice, we cannot ignore the plight of widows.
I warmly acknowledge the long-standing support that successive UK Governments have given to the Loomba Foundation, including during the successful campaign that led to the United Nations unanimously adopting 23 June as International Widows Day. However, there is no doubt that reductions in overseas development aid have made the task significantly harder at a time of increasing global instability and humanitarian need. Will the Government work with international NGOs, including the Loomba Foundation, to mitigate the impact of reduced funding through greater collaboration, improved data collection and stronger evidence-based policy? On International Widows Day this year, we adopted the Universal Declaration of Widows’ Rights, founded on a simple principle: widowhood is the loss of a spouse; it must not become the loss of rights. I hope the Government will support that principle in both policy and practice.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for this debate and join her in expressing my concern about the impact that reductions in the UK’s ODA will have on women and girls around the world. When aid budgets are reduced, the consequences are not felt equally. Women and girls are almost always the first to lose access to education, healthcare, sexual and reproductive health services, protection from violence and economic opportunities. These are not abstract budget lines; they are the foundations of dignity, security and opportunity.
For decades, the UK has been recognised as a global leader in championing girls’ education, maternal health, ending gender-based violence and supporting women’s rights organisations. That leadership has saved lives, expanded opportunity and strengthened our standing as a trusted international partner. We should be proud of that record. Yet reductions in ODA invariably force difficult choices. Programmes supporting survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, preventing child marriage, improving maternal healthcare and enabling girls to stay in school are often among those scaled back or closed altogether.
Support matters not only because it is the right thing to do, but because investing in women and girls is one of the smartest investments any country can make. When girls complete their education, child marriage declines, maternal and infant mortality falls, household incomes rise and communities become more resilient. When women participate fully in economic and political life, societies are more stable, prosperous and secure.
In 2014, Parliament passed the International Development (Gender Equality) Act, introduced by Sir William Cash as a Private Member’s Bill with cross-party support. That Act requires Ministers, when providing development assistance, to have regard to the desirability of reducing gender inequality and addressing the particular needs of women and girls. That legislation is relevant to today’s debate about whether significant reductions in ODA can be reconciled with the spirit and the purpose of the legislation. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the impact of recent ODA reductions on the Government’s ability to meet the duties and objectives set out in the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014?
Our values are measured by not only what we say but where we choose to invest. Supporting women and girls is not an optional extra or a peripheral concern. It is central to poverty reduction, global stability and sustainable development. Even in challenging fiscal circumstances, we must not lose sight of that fundamental truth. I hope the Minister will reaffirm the UK’s commitment to ensuring that women and girls remain at the heart of our international development policy.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I am the co-chair of the APPG on Global Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. I, too, thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for securing this important and timely debate. It has truly been a sobering debate with so much expertise around this table.
Wars waged by men are often a death sentence for women and girls. Yet despite carrying much of the burden during war, women remain excluded from peace negotiations and political decision-making. The UN reports that women make up only 7% of negotiators and 14% of mediators in formal peace processes. The dial has hardly moved on those statistics in years. As we have heard, more than 4.3 million women and girls in Sudan are now displaced. The suffering is horrifying. We have heard that in Congo, Afghanistan, Gaza and other places, suffering is equally off the scale.
The reduction in FCDO health spending in 2025-26, including cuts to the women’s integrated sexual health programme, has been described as a cruel proposal at a time of acute crisis for women and girls. For the UNFPA programmes, although core funding has been welcome, 2025 funding cuts from multiple donors have severely disrupted sexual and reproductive health. Even with existing funding, 1,100 health facilities and mobile clinics were forced to close. In many places, the maternal health clinic may still stand, but the midwife is gone. There is no emergency obstetric equipment, no post-rape kits and no contraceptives left on the shelves.
Across conflict settings, we are not witnessing temporary service disruptions, we are watching decades of investment in women’s health being rolled back. The impact cannot be measured simply in budgets; it is measured in lives, as we have heard from some harrowing personal stories here today. The truth in this crisis goes deeper than aid cuts. As the noble Baroness said, we need an impact assessment on the full extent of these cuts.
It was reported recently in the British Medical Journal that as conflicts increase, the UK, the United States and other countries are pulling back support that communities rely on. At its core is a global financial system that starves health services of the funding they need. Until that system is reformed and more women are at the table where these decisions are being taken, women, children and vulnerable people will keep paying with their health and their lives.
The UK must use its influential role globally to champion women’s economic alternatives through the G7, the G20 and the UN, including debt relief. Many countries are paying so much in debt repayment rather than investing in services for their communities. To enable Governments to invest in these gender-responsive services, education and long-term resilience, what is needed, as has been mentioned already, is political leadership, which is vital. I hope that in the coming changes in the Government, this will be on the agenda and considered.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for bringing this debate forward. Her long-standing commitment to international development is respected across the House, and I pay tribute to her for her continued work.
Before I address the issue of overseas development assistance, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I reflect on the increasingly unstable world in which we live. We know that instability and conflict have unique effects on women and girls. Last month, I asked the Minister about the appalling sexual violence against women in Sudan; this was highlighted by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We have seen cases of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war in Ukraine and against Israeli hostages, as well as on 7 October 2023. We have a powerful role to play as a voice against atrocities and war crimes, as well as in holding perpetrators to account. Can the Minister expand on the Government’s broader approach to conflict in the world today, the effect that it is having on women and girls—especially in respect of sexual violence—and how we are responding to it?
I turn to the overseas development assistance budget. As has been mentioned by most noble Lords, in the face of growing fiscal and defence challenges, our spending has reduced significantly as a percentage of gross national income. Given the challenges that we face today, the Official Opposition understand and support that. I appreciate that there are a range of views on funding in this Committee, of course, but the Government’s work on supporting the rights of women and girls across the world need not be constrained by our redefined ODA budget. We can also continue to use our reputation as a respected nation on the international stage to promote that progress.
That is, I think, what the Government have sought to do in appointing the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, as the UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls. Can the Minister update the Committee on the progress made during those visits? Can she also say whether championing the contribution that women and girls can make internationally has been discussed at the UK Soft Power Council? If not, will it be discussed at its next meeting?
In closing, although there are a range of views on our spending on overseas development assistance, I hope that we can all be united in our ambition to see an end to violence against women and girls, equality before the law and freedom for all, as well as recognition of the value of the contribution that women can make in every society across the world. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for bringing us together to have this discussion. It is incredibly important that we do so, and it speaks to the level of interest and concern across our House that so many noble Lords have chosen to come and take part in this Committee this afternoon. I know personally how committed the noble Baroness is to improving the lives of women and girls around the world. This is not a new thing for her; she has spent many years doing this, and I value and respect her work. I know how much everybody here cares about this issue.
I have to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I understand where the noble Lord read what he spoke about; it was recently raised with me, too, at the International Development Committee. I have responded formally in writing to the committee specifically on the issues raised by the noble Lord. I can categorically assure him that no such proposal ever came to any Minister and that the least effective options were not selected. That did not happen. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord and whoever he wishes to bring along to discuss these matters in as much detail as he would like, because I know that his aim is true and that what he wants is the same as what I want, which is to see a resolution to this heinous conflict.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all—she knows that. I did not say that proposals had been sent to her. I said there had been four sets of proposals and stakeholders had been involved in them. What I said was that a particular, most ambitious proposal was put to one side and the least ambitious proposal was the one that was adopted. Which Ministers agreed to see those proposals in the first place, I do not know, but as she said, this was said at a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and it has been said in the national media. This was not something I pulled out of thin air. I am grateful to her as it would be good to have sight of the letter she has written. She knows that before the Genocide Determination Bill is considered next Friday, a request was made by her noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and me to see the Foreign Secretary. I hope the Minister will relay that request again.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would be very happy to do that. I know that the noble Lord does not pull these things out of thin air; I am familiar with where this has come from. I have said what I have said, we can get into it in more depth, and I would be very happy to do that.
The Government have put the safety and rights of women and girls at the heart of the UK’s development and international work more generally. We have done this because, as many noble Lords have said, advancing gender equality is the right thing to do, but it is also the best way to alleviate poverty, build economies and support women leaders, and countries need women leaders in order to thrive. I think everybody here understands and agrees with that. Women strengthen democracies, advance peace and security, and drive prosperity. That is why the Foreign Secretary made women and girls a stand-alone priority for the FCDO. It is also why I am a SheDecides champion, supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights, and women’s rights to choose.
We now have the framework in place to turn our ambitions into reality. I would like more money for this agenda, and I think that contributions that highlight the ODA budget cuts are absolutely legitimate and fair. What is less fair, I think, is any suggestion that we have somehow not understood the impact that this could have, that we have not been open and transparent about the decisions that we have made, or that we have not consciously and deliberately amended those choices in order to, as far as we possibly can, within the budget that we have, make sure that women and girls, within the constraints that exist, remain central to everything we do. At the end of the day, development is all about women and girls. They benefit from every penny that we spend, and we have to make sure that that continues.
In May, we launched the UK’s international strategic framework on women and girls. This sets out how we will advance the safety, prosperity, voice—that is vital—and choice of women and girls, bringing together our diplomatic, development and multilateral efforts behind a clear set of priorities.
I was asked about mainstreaming. I completely understand the misgivings that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about this. I agree with her—we have to be alert to that—but we have committed that by 2030, at least 90% of the UK’s bilateral ODA programmes will contribute to gender equality, ensuring that women and girls remain central to our work even as our budget is reduced. We are making progress. In 2024, 81% of FCDO bilateral ODA projects were marked as making a principal or significant contribution to gender equality. That is up from 58% in 2022. This means that we are designing programmes that better address the barriers faced by women and girls across our portfolio while continuing targeted action where that is needed. I will say a little bit about that as well.
A number of contributions raised concerns about the impact of the reduction in spending. These cuts are a reality. They were significant, which is why—I think this is the first time this has been done—we took the decision to publish the equalities impact assessments for our allocations for the next three years. They tell us that there is no disproportionate negative impact on women and girls across our multilateral and central spending.
I will be honest about how this came about. We made a set of decisions and commissioned the equalities impact assessment. It came back and I did not like what I was reading, so we changed some decisions as a consequence and published the assessment. That is why noble Lords will see some programmes protected, even though in their essence they go against some of the changes and modernisation moves that we wanted to make in our development spend, because they are centrally managed programmes. They are run in a way which is about service provision. They could be accused—it seems an odd thing to say—of generating dependency or being duplicate systems. But if we were not looking at giving out contraception in areas of the Sahel, then the idea that you could strengthen a government system that would be willing to do that work is, I think, just not realistic or practical at this stage, so those things continue.
We have protected central programme spending both on violence against women and girls and on women, peace and security, where our work continues to support women peacebuilders and women’s rights organisations in some of the world’s most dangerous and fragile places. We have protected funding for Education Cannot Wait, ensuring that girls continue to get an education in even the most difficult conditions, and we have increased the proportion of country and regional spending in fragile and conflict-affected states, where women and girls are often at the most risk. This will rise to over 70% of our portfolio by 2028-29.
Like noble Lords, including—I am so sorry, I want to call her Lynne, which I know is highly inappropriate—the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, I have had the privilege to serve as a Development Minister, as others have too. I have been there in makeshift shelters listening to women who have endured the worst experiences that most of us could ever imagine: in Chad, with women fleeing the war in Sudan; with Rohingya women in Bangladesh; and with those escaping hideous conflict in DRC. I have heard their stories, held their children and their hands, and I know, as many have rightly said, that they are not numbers or names on a list. In the words that we have heard this afternoon and which were said to me by women on these occasions, they are our sisters. We support these women, though not just with aid. We must do more. We have to make ourselves really focus on the outcomes that we achieve, not just what we put into the system. We have to be responsible for the outcome of everything that we spend.
As the UK shifts from being a donor to a long-term partner and investor, we have got to focus on strengthening the systems that countries rely on, so that they can thrive even when aid is cut. The modern partnerships we are seeking to build will use investment and economic growth to expand opportunity for women and girls. That is one reason why British International Investment’s new strategy will increase investments supporting women’s economic empowerment from 25% to 30% of its core portfolio. This investment will support more women for longer, and in a more sustainable way, than traditional programming ever could.
We must have some humility about the limit of what our traditional aid spending could ever achieve. The world spends around $70 billion ODA in Africa; the development gap is $1.3 trillion, so there is a lot more that needs to be done. There is money in markets in Europe and North America that never goes anywhere near Africa. Part of our role, the leadership that the UK can provide, is about making sure that that money can get into those developing economies and do real good in the longer term.
As noble Lords have said, we must not just contend with cuts in ODA. There was a real issue with rollback and political hostility to this agenda. Our commitment to this agenda is reflected not just in the choices we have made here but in our wider diplomatic work. In May, the Foreign Secretary announced a new international coalition to end violence against women and girls, to prevent violence, protect women and girls, and hold perpetrators to account. Next year, the UK will convene a major summit on tackling violence against women and girls, providing a platform for countries to set out further commitments and report on progress so that we can learn from each other.
As noble Baronesses—mostly—have said, we want the multilateral system to raise its standards and build coalitions, defending the global consensus on women’s rights in international conventions and agreements, and in our partnerships with multilateral institutions. I could go on a lot more about our commitment to Gavi and the Global Fund and how we are now the biggest contributor to UNFPA, but we are probably short of time.
Women and girls’ rights are fundamental to global stability, prosperity and sustainable development. That is why we have taken decisions on where we spend our ODA mindfully. While budgets have changed, our commitment absolutely has not, and we will continue to champion the safety and rights of women and girls around the world because it is the right thing to do and is fundamental to the prosperity, security and stability that we seek for every woman and every girl everywhere.
Modern Service Framework for Dementia and Frailty
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Modern Service Framework for Dementia and Frailty will improve dementia diagnosis, ensure robust and acceptable clinical data and performance metrics, and enable access to innovative treatments.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to raise what is both an important and timely issue. There is a truism which certainly affects my family, indeed most families: many years ago, it would have been said that the terrible scourge of cancer had touched pretty much every family in the country and that most had lost at least one loved one. With dementia now being the single largest cause of death in the United Kingdom, that truism about cancer is becoming more and more relevant and accurate for describing dementia as well.
Given what I think is the universal nature of the dementia issue, we should all be on the same side and the same page on this, and I believe that we are. To that extent, the modern service framework offers a golden opportunity to set the strategic direction, and its practical implementation, for the future of dementia services within the United Kingdom. I am encouraged to learn of a number of groups with which there has been co-operation from the department in drawing up that document. It would be helpful for the Minister to give us a little more detail today of the extent of the co-design of the modern service framework, and to update the Committee on the timescale for the interim and final reports of the framework. It is therefore important that we get this right, because none of us want to see the modern service framework become a missed opportunity. That is why the details need to be right.
In the brief time available to me today, I will touch on four areas which are critical to the modern service framework. First, there is reduction of risk. A recent survey carried out by Alzheimer’s Research UK indicated that 84% of people wanted to know more about what they could do to reduce the risk of dementia, but, in that same poll, only 8% had any level of confidence that anything they could do could help to avoid or delay it. We know from international global studies that, currently, about 14 risk factors have been identified. I think this will become more and more relevant as our medical knowledge develops over the years to come.
It is important that reduction of risk is built into the modern service framework. That means looking at practical steps and at what is being done to try to identify high-risk groups—for example, how we will incorporate positive brain-health messaging into NHS health checks—and at how we can increase access to secondary prevention, through methodologies such as the memory assessment services and emerging brain health clinics, and integrate these with neighbourhood health centres. Reducing risk therefore has a critical role.
Secondly, there is the critical issue of diagnosis. We know it is estimated that perhaps a little over one-third of people with dementia are as yet undiagnosed. When we delve into that for early-onset dementia, the figures fall to probably less than half currently being diagnosed. There is a wide variety—a very patchy provision—across the country in the speed and extent of diagnosis. For example, if we look at early-onset dementia, the time taken for diagnosis is, generally speaking, about twice the length of time as for anybody else with dementia.
There is also an issue about the quality of the data generated from that diagnosis and the specificity that is able to be provided in the diagnosis. Therefore, it is important that the modern service framework looks at what the pre-existing options are for diagnosing Alzheimer’s. For example, if we look at PET scans and CSF testing, how can we embed those more and then embrace the next-generation technology of blood tests? Having commitments to that within the MSF is important, but it is also the case that we need to standardise coding across health and care settings, so that we can have standardised data in that regard. I say to the Government that it is important that they look, through the modern service framework, towards increasing the rate of diagnosis and ensuring that there is a greater level of consistency of diagnosis across the country.
Thirdly, and related to that, is the issue of research. We know that research and diagnosis in many ways go hand in hand, because if we do not have the volume of people being diagnosed, or if it is slower, that obviously impacts on the ability for clinical trials but will also impact the individual’s ability to get that early intervention as quickly as possible. Many of us see a golden opportunity in the years ahead. We are hopefully at the cusp or dawn of a new era of medical advances as regards dementia, which could either delay or even at some stage, we hope, prevent dementia in many cases. I commend to the Government the very recent publication of Ready for the Cure, which has been produced by the Alzheimer’s Research Society. I urge them to look at it. Within that, we need to learn how the Government see additional commitment to research through the modern service framework. Will it be focused on strengthening the research pipeline, and perhaps on creating a national dementia innovation team and national dementia datasets, so that we do not have a wide variety of those?
There is also a challenge, when looking at treatments, with the current position of NICE. There is a concern that its cost-benefit analysis does not take fully into account the extent of the burden on carers, even from the financial point of view. That needs to be fed a lot better into the system. As part of that, we need to ensure that not only do we get the research, but that the NHS is research-ready, so that whenever we have it available it can be implemented quickly.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of pathways. Obviously, diagnosis is just the start rather than the end of a journey. Again, we have somewhat patchy quality in the pathways across the country. We need to standardise that and create a pathway applicable to everyone, probably with a level of variation—we would need something slightly different for those with early-onset dementia. Arising out of that, we will need to address gaps in infrastructure and staffing levels. In looking at pathways, we should not forget end-of-life palliative care and how we can invest in that. I welcome the debate and look forward to the contributions of others and the response of the Minister.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for securing this important debate, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering the modern service framework for dementia and frailty. Dementia is not gender neutral. We may not have a cure at the moment, but we can cure the inequity in access to research, clinical trials, early diagnosis and effective treatments.
In England, more than 500,000 people now have a recorded diagnosis of dementia, and nearly two-thirds of them are women. Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease have been the leading cause of death for women in England and Wales since 2011. Almost two-thirds of unpaid carers for people with dementia are also women. Women live longer, but longevity alone does not explain this disparity. The APOE4 gene increases women’s risk of Alzheimer’s disease more than men’s.
The emerging evidence suggests that the hormonal changes associated with menopause may increase vulnerability. The hormone oestrogen is vital for memory formation, as it is essential for effective communication between neurons in the part of the brain involved in memory. The link between dementia and menopause extends beyond misdiagnosis, yet until recently, the relationship between menopause and dementia received remarkably little scientific attention. We need more research about the risks of developing dementia in women who undergo early or premature menopause. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, mentioned, we need to work on reducing risk and, where possible, identify who is at high risk of developing dementia. Part of that involves identifying the risk in women going through early or premature menopause.
This has a human cost. Karen Barber from Essex devoted more than a decade of her life to public service at HM Passport Office and HMRC. In her 50s, her memory and organisational skills began to deteriorate. Her symptoms were repeatedly attributed to menopause and stress. She was repeatedly told that her symptoms were “in her mind”. Without a diagnosis, she was dismissed from her job for poor performance. More than 10 years later, and only after paying privately for a specialist assessment, she was finally diagnosed with young-onset dementia. Karen’s story is not simply one of illness; it is a story of delayed diagnosis, lost employment, financial hardship for the family and a system that failed to recognise the disease at the time.
For too long, medicine has been built around a male standard. Women’s underrepresentation in research and the failure to analyse differences between the sexes have left important gaps in our understanding of dementia. As we have known for a long time, studies show that women are underrepresented in dementia clinical trials relative to the burden of disease they bear. One review found that, among 118 dementia trials, only eight reported outcomes separately for women and men. In several studies, treatment benefits appeared greater in men, reminding us that biological sex may influence how medicines work. If we do not measure these differences, we cannot deliver gender-based care and the truly personalised, precision medicine that everyone deserves. I therefore warmly welcome the framework’s commitment to expanding dementia clinical trials, which is absolutely necessary and urgent, and the confirmation that participation will increase to 2,000 people over the next five years.
Innovation reduces inequalities only if it is designed for everyone. This is not only a health challenge for women, it is also an economic one. Women already face a substantial gender pension gap, and many leave the workforce prematurely because of caring responsibilities or their own ill health. For women with young-onset dementia, like Karen Barber, years of lost earnings, delayed diagnosis and interrupted careers compound lifetime financial disadvantage. Preventing dementia becoming a pathway into poverty should be part of our national ambition. Women bear a double burden when it comes to dementia, as I said earlier—I repeat it. They constitute the majority of those living with dementia and the majority of those caring for people with dementia. Too often, they also constitute the majority of those overlooked by research, clinical trials and clinicians.
If this modern service framework is truly to be once in a generation, it must place women not at the margins but at its very heart when it comes to clinical trials and early diagnosis. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, this is a huge opportunity to achieve that. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the Committee that sex and gender differences will be embedded throughout the modern service framework, from research funding and clinical trial design to the adoption of new diagnostics and treatments with proportionate representation of women? That includes ethnic minority women, because there are some differences in clinical trials and mandatory reporting of sex-disaggregated outcomes. If we are serious about precision medicine, which we should be, it must be precision medicine for all women.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for securing this debate and for setting out the issues, as he did so comprehensively and with great expertise. We are very grateful to him.
Like so many people up and down the country—and, as I know, in your Lordships’ House—I too have experience of helping to care for relatives with dementia. The first time was over 20 years ago, and now our family joins many others in trying to navigate the challenge of a recent diagnosis. I have been reflecting on what has changed since I first tried to help a relative over 20 years ago, and I want to start on an optimistic note, because the medical landscape is different.
As we have heard, we have entered an era where the first disease-modifying therapies have been licensed. Innovation in diagnostics is enabling us to accurately identify disease earlier in the trajectory, and blood tests in NHS trials could make the diagnostic pathway easier. So, recent breakthroughs have at last delivered hope, if we build a healthcare and research system that is ready to adopt and deliver these innovations at scale as soon as they become available.
I am grateful for the briefings I have received. The joint letter from Dementia UK, Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society in the very helpful Library briefing confirmed that there is
“a clear opportunity to change the trajectory of dementia—if the system is ready to act”.
However, it also stressed that
“we must recognise that the health and care system is failing to deliver the outcomes that people with dementia deserve today”.
The contrast between scientific progress and the daily reality faced by many patients can be jarring. Every dementia experience is of course unique to the individual, but the vast majority of families face similar hurdles: the emotional toll, the labyrinth of health and social care services and the struggle to access specialised support. It can be a very lonely journey, and I know that for many families, it takes a crisis for help to arrive, so I ask the Government to ensure that the framework is built on a true understanding of the experience of patients and carers.
In a debate on Alzheimer’s in October 2025, the Minister described the framework as taking “a whole view”. My hope is that this means it will take a whole view of the person and indeed of the system. The title of the report from Alzheimer’s Research UK, which the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly referred to, is Ready for the Cure. It also highlights that dementia is one of the most feared health conditions, as we have heard. Yet we may also have a once-in-a-generation chance to move to a more preventive treatment model. We must ensure that the UK’s scientific excellence is translated into impact for patients and their families. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness could set out how she envisages the framework achieving this.
We have so many strengths in the UK: there has been political will from past Governments and from this Government and many global leaders in the field are based here. As part of the 2012 Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia, the UK established the UK Dementia Research Institute, a beacon of scientific innovation, and the last Government established the Dame Barbara Windsor Dementia Goals programme.
We are also gaining a better understanding of prevention. The Lancet commission suggested that 45% of cases of dementia are preventable, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, referred to. We know that it is about managing risks where we can through lifestyle interventions—what is good for the heart is good for the head—and through better health system management, particularly of conditions such as diabetes. I also want to flag that recent successive studies have shown that people who have had the shingles vaccine have a low incidence of dementia. The shingles vaccine is one of a number of vaccines where studies have suggested some preventive cognitive benefit. Understanding the science behind this better will help shape future vaccine advice, and I wonder whether the Government have thought about this as part of the strategy and whether the Minister can comment.
Finally, but most importantly, let us remember the importance of kindness and empathy. I think about the number of people I have known who have sat in a room to hear a diagnosis and, indeed, the times when I have heard news about a family member. Each time, the reaction has been: where do we go next and who can help us? The Secretary of State has set out the importance of enabling patients to live well in their own neighbourhoods. This relies on a properly resourced workforce across health and social care, with the skills and kindness to help patients and their families manage a heartbreaking disease. Navigating post-diagnostic support is difficult, even with an advocate. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the Government’s approach to care plans. This framework must move us away from a fragmented approach which too often let-down patients and families. We stand at an inflection point. I hope the Government recognise the urgency, because decisions taken now will shape how millions of people experience the hardest chapter of their lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for tabling this Question for Short Debate and for his comprehensive opening words which set the tone for this short but perfectly formed debate, giving us the opportunity to consider what the modern service framework for dementia and frailty needs to deliver. If it is to succeed, it should set clear national standards backed by funding and accountability so that a diagnosis opens the door to real support and access to new treatments as they become available.
As we have heard, dementia is the UK’s leading cause of death, with almost 1 million people currently living with the condition. This is projected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, pointed out that two-thirds of them are women and referred to the interesting research on hormonal changes, the menopause and its links to developing dementia. That is important and something that we need to consider.
Research is advancing rapidly. There are, I understand, 158 drugs in 192 clinical trials globally. The first disease-modifying treatments are now licensed in the UK. However, people can access trials for innovative treatments only when they are diagnosed early—making diagnosis at the earliest stages increasingly important. It would be good to hear from the Minister what work the Government are undertaking to ensure easier access to trials. Alzheimer’s Research UK estimates that close to one-third of people over 65 living with dementia in England still do not have a recorded diagnosis, so closing that diagnostic gap is critical.
A UCL-led trial—supported by the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Gates Ventures and players of the Postcode Lottery—began testing a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease in NHS memory services last year, offering a simpler, less invasive route to diagnosis than current methods. If this proves reliable, the framework should be ready to support its rollout across the NHS.
As we have heard, Alzheimer’s Research UK has launched a new policy report today, Ready for the Cure: A Blueprint for UK Leadership in Dementia Research, which sets out a series of recommendations to address the key structural barriers to advancing dementia research. I hope to hear, perhaps, an initial reflection on that report when we hear from the Minister.
However, a diagnosis on its own is not enough. NHS England’s data shows that more than one-quarter of people living with a dementia diagnosis did not receive a care plan in the past year and that specialist support, such as Admiral nurses, remains patchy and dependent on where someone lives. That gap matters most in the weeks after diagnosis, when families are trying to understand what has changed and what support is available to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, set out her family’s personal experience. As for others, with that diagnosis of dementia, the question is: where should we turn? What happens next? It is a picture about which we hear so often from many families.
Dementia UK and others have called for specialist dementia nursing to be part of every neighbourhood health team. If the framework is genuinely to modernise dementia care, diagnosis, treatment, care planning and support for carers, which is so important, it must be designed and funded as a single pathway. As the ageing population grows and new dementia treatments emerge, the demand for diagnosis will inevitably rise. The forthcoming framework presents a clear opportunity for standardising the pathways for referral, assessment and treatment, for robust data capture and reporting and for reducing the variation in service across the country, which we hear about so often. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly stressed, we need to get this right. Our discussion on prevention is also an important part of this.
I turn to frailty, which makes up the other half of this framework. Around one in 10 people over 65 live with it, and the figure rises to as many as half of those aged over 85. Last month, the Commons Public Accounts Committee reported that only 17% of patients aged over 65 had had a frailty assessment recorded by their GP in the past year, well short of what is needed to ensure that those living with frailty have access to treatment. For those already identified as being most at risk, only 16% had had a medication review and 18% had had a falls risk assessment. This is in a service that is meant to reach everyone in that group. If frailty is to sit alongside dementia in the framework, it deserves the same focus on early identification, consistent standards and timely intervention. Bringing these two conditions together in one framework creates a real opportunity to establish common principles across both. If the framework is going to achieve everything, it must make a meaningful difference to people living with dementia and frailty, as well as to their families and the support networks that care for them.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this debate and hope to hear of a timescale and resource commitment to this important area.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for securing this important debate. I also thank all those who sent us briefings, as well as all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Dementia remains one of the greatest health and social care challenges facing our country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, rightly said, and as other noble Lords agreed, dementia is said to be the leading cause of death in the UK, with nearly 1 million people in the UK currently living with dementia, a figure that is expected to rise significantly over coming decades as our population ages. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, this is a condition that touches most, if not all, families. My noble friend Lady Wyld spoke movingly about her experience. I have started to experience it in my own family because my mother is in the early stages; I have to fly over every so often to give her some sort of respite, as it were.
That demonstrates that behind every diagnosis is not only the individual but their families, their friends and their carers, whose lives are profoundly affected. As my noble friend Lady Wyld said, it calls for a whole view of the person as much as a whole view of the system. Against that backdrop, I think we all welcome the modern service framework and see it as an important opportunity. However, for it to succeed, it must do more than simply list aspirations. It must provide a practical road map on, first, improving diagnosis, secondly, strengthening the evidence base, and, thirdly, ensuring that the NHS and other healthcare providers are prepared to adopt new innovations as they emerge.
If we look at the current state of diagnosis, we find that around one in three people living with dementia remains undiagnosed. Even when someone receives a diagnosis, the precise type of dementia—such as Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal dementia or any other rare type of dementia—is often unspecified. That makes a huge difference because it helps you determine the most appropriate treatments. How can you do that if the type of dementia is not diagnosed?
Early diagnosis not only allows patients and their families to plan and access support sooner; thanks to the continuous advances in research, about which noble Lords have spoken, it will allow patients to access treatments that could possibly slow disease progression. Can the Minister tell us how the modern service framework will support more consistent diagnostic pathways across England? Given the significant regional variation that currently exists, how will resources be targeted to those areas with lower dementia diagnosis rates? What role does the Minister’s department see community diagnostic centres, neighbourhood health centres and primary care playing in this early diagnosis?
I turn to the evidence base, which is the crux of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Weir. It refers to
“robust and acceptable clinical data and performance metrics”,
which will be key to improving prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Without good-quality, consistent data, we cannot know whether patients are receiving appropriate care, where services are improving or where additional support is needed. Can the Minister tell the Committee how the modern service framework will establish a consistent national approach to collecting dementia data? Will it include meaningful outcome measures that reflect patients’ experiences as well as clinical activity? How will that data be used to drive improvement, rather than being simply about reporting requirements?
I turn to innovation. As other noble Lords have said, we are entering a transformative period in dementia research. Scientific understanding has advanced considerably in recent years, with disease-modifying treatments emerging and more therapies under investigation. This gives us cause for some optimism, particularly when it comes to prevention. Growing evidence suggests that around 45% of dementia cases may be preventable or delayed by addressing modifiable risk factors. Given the mantra “from sickness to prevention”, with which all noble Lords would agree, can the Minister explain how the modern service framework will embed brain health and dementia prevention across our system of healthcare, whether through NHS health checks or other public health initiatives? It would be useful for us to know which particular initiatives will play a role.
As the Minister will be aware, preventing or delaying dementia where possible would improve quality of life for individuals. It would also reduce pressure on not only them and their families but our systems of health and social care. Can the Minister explain how the modern service framework will prepare the NHS, first, to adopt new diagnostic tests and innovative treatments as the evidence develops; and, secondly, to try to reduce those delays as much as possible while maintaining safety?
We know that innovation is driven by research. The Secretary of State has accepted the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to increase participation in dementia clinical trials to 2,000 people over the next few years. That is welcome but, as other noble Lords have said, participation in dementia research remains strikingly low despite the growing number of clinical trials now under way internationally. I was very much struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, who spoke about the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. We must also do more to understand the links between dementia and other conditions, which are interesting; one mentioned by the noble Baroness is that between the menopause and dementia. Can the Minister say how the Government intend not only to achieve the target of 2,000 trialists but to create a generally research-ready, research-led system of healthcare?
The UK is already a leader in some areas of health research, but, in recent meetings with life sciences companies, I have heard some of them talk about how much more difficult it is becoming to conduct clinical trials in this country. The UK is still a leader, but we must always look behind us as well as looking ahead because, clearly, there are some concerns among life sciences companies. If the United Kingdom is to realise its ambition of becoming a world leader in dementia research, participation in clinical trials cannot be viewed as an optional extra; it must become an integral part of high-quality dementia care.
While we are here, I ask the Minister for her views, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, on NICE’s health technology assessments, including whether there is a way in which we could start to consider the contribution that a treatment could make to society and others. I understand that we had a separate debate and that there were some concerns from the Government, but I would like to hear the Minister’s views on this.
The challenge of dementia extends far beyond healthcare alone. It affects social care, housing, research and innovation, and it is itself affected by these factors. At the human level, it affects not only the individual but their families every single day. The modern service framework is an important opportunity to ensure that our health system is ready for the remarkable scientific advances that are beginning to emerge.
I realise that, in my usual Socratic way, I have asked the Minister many questions, some of which will be answered today, and others which she will diligently respond to in writing. But the gist of all these questions from me and other noble Lords is to remind her that the framework will be judged not simply by its ambitions but by whether research gives us better understanding of prevention and treatment. It will be judged by whether more people receive an earlier diagnosis and gain faster access to innovative treatments—and by whether people in England diagnosed with or at risk of dementia will one day be able to live longer lives in good health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on securing this debate. It has clearly engaged so many and I, for one, am pleased about the positive reaction. He mentioned at the outset that we are all agreed. I am sure that this outbreak of unanimity is always helpful when trying to make progress.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just now, spoke about the personal impact—as did the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and all other noble Lords—on the person but also on their families, their communities and those around them. That is very much at the core of the modern service framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, described the challenge of a lonely, crisis-driven system. That is not how it should be, and it is not serving as it should.
I want to set out at the beginning that everyone with dementia and frailty, and their loved ones, deserves high-quality, compassionate, joined-up care and support. Indeed, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, that the framework will take a view of the whole person and the whole system. That is the way in which we will deliver. I am grateful, not just for the welcome but for the description of this as a golden opportunity, which the noble Lord, Lord Weir, talked about, and as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, said. We absolutely recognise the points being raised by all noble Lords because the system we have has to, and will, change.
That is why we are developing and will deliver the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia. It will be all about the outcomes—to pick up some of the points asked. It will be a blueprint for how we develop that shift that we are all seeking. It will also work across both health and care settings, which is absolutely crucial. It is important that the MSF is delivered in this way because it acknowledges that dementia and frailty so often coexist. They are hard to distinguish and there is no need to do so. The MSF will also outline, when we look to the future, how we harness the innovations that have the potential to transform care.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that I am grateful for the engagement that we have had with such a wide range of stakeholders, including those with lived experience, and carers, without whom we could not develop this in the right way. They also include clinicians, adult social care, the NHS and charity partners. As noble Lords will have seen, the immediate findings from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on social care made some immediate recommendations on dementia, and we have embraced them straight away. That includes the establishment of a new dementia leadership role in the department with the power to drive action forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on the tests that he set; I am totally on board with those. It is only by action, outcomes and change for the better that we will be able to judge it. Otherwise, it is just a piece of paper, and there is no point in doing that.
On the question about timelines from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, we seek to publish the full modern service framework by the end of the year, as recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey; we are glad to accept that. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it will set national standards and redirect NHS priorities, because we cannot pretend that we can do this as things are.
There has rightly been a discussion about clinical data, which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised, and performance matrix. There are many interventions to consider as we improve dementia and frailty care. That is why we are considering all options—I emphasise that. We want to look at the interventions with the best evidence and outcomes. Through the MSF, we will set standards, so we can measure against them, on how interventions should be used, and we will review the metrics and performance data necessary to monitor these standards.
I turn to the question of timely and accurate diagnosis, which we know is vital to delivering excellent care. It is, in effect, a gateway to vital advice, information and support. That is why we are committed to recovering the dementia diagnosis rate to the national figure of 66.7%. Importantly, that includes a validated diagnosis of dementia subtype—it is important not to just lump everything together. The framework will look at how we improve diagnosis waiting times, which are too long in many areas, as well as addressing unwanted variation in dementia diagnosis rates across the country and across different groups, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Nargund.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, referred to the Ready for the Cure report, which deals with research and access to treatments and is very pertinent to the immediate recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. I can say in response that, through government funders such as NIHR, we continue to invest in dementia research, including speeding up the development of potential treatments, which was also much called for in today’s debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised the risk factors and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, talked about the Lancet commission, which has been very helpful in identifying global risk factors for dementia and the extent to which they are reducible. The NIHR-funded dementia and neurodegeneration policy research units are supporting the development of our understanding of where we have an opportunity to reduce risk. I will be pleased to keep updating the House on that ongoing work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked about easier access to trials. We are working to fast-track clinical trials, because we want to drive global investment in life sciences as well as provide opportunities for individuals. I have spoken about the acceleration of the development of medicines. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that we have made the UK an infinitely more attractive place for clinical trials, not least by stripping out bureaucracy and unnecessary obstacles. We have reduced the period to way below the 150-day ambition that we set.
We are ensuring, as my noble friend Lady Nargund asked, that research opportunities are available, irrespective of who people are and where they live. The women’s health strategy makes particular reference to the point she raised on the link between menopause and dementia. The NIHR continues to work on funding for applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including that link. Our investment continues. We have already adopted the target of 2,000 people participating in dementia trials within the next five years; it currently stands at 377. I believe that by improving the UK’s attractiveness for dementia trials, we will be able to drive forward improvements beyond what we have currently.
There was a number of particular points, and I will be very pleased to write to noble Lords on specifics. All the specifics raised today are key to how we improve the potential of the MSF, and we are keen to continue to work on that.
The Government absolutely recognise, and are with noble Lords on, the need to improve diagnosis and to have that robust data and the access to innovative treatments. I believe that the modern service framework will deliver that and drive them forward, as well as the other provisions, in a way that we do not have access to now. It is a time to be positive, and I am glad noble Lords spoke in that way, because I, too, share that feeling.
House of Lords
Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is with a profound sense of sadness, shared across the House, that I pay tribute today to one of the truly monumental figures of our nation’s legal and parliamentary heritage. The news of the passing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, shortly before his 100th birthday, is deeply felt by us all.
James Mackay was a man of towering intellect, yet he was defined equally by his quiet humility, his deep faith, an unwavering commitment to public service and great generosity of spirit. Born the son of a railway signalman in Edinburgh, his journey to the highest legal offices of state is a testament to his extraordinary talent, rising to become dean of the Faculty of Advocates before serving with distinction as Lord Advocate. His deep grounding in Scottish law brought a rigorous, analytical clarity to everything he did—a perspective that enriched the entire jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.
In 1987, Margaret Thatcher broke with centuries of tradition by appointing a Scottish lawyer as Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. For a decade, serving in both the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments, Lord Mackay occupied the Woolsack with a quiet, revolutionary authority. He was an historic, modernising Lord Chancellor. He shepherded the Children Act 1989 through this House and on to the statute book. It was a piece of legislation that radically reshaped family law, firmly establishing that a child’s welfare is the courts’ paramount consideration. That has stood the test of time.
Although Lord Mackay never sought conflict, he was never afraid of controversy, if he believed it served the public good. He introduced pioneering reforms to the legal profession that expanded access to justice for millions. Yet for all his grand achievements on the national stage, he retained that gentle humanity and his characteristic warmth and friendliness. Whether it was a word in passing in the corridors of your Lordships’ House or pulling up a chair for lunch in the Long Room, you would welcome his company. Like many others, I would listen in admiration, and often awe, when he spoke in the Chamber or in Committee. He would speak without notes, always making insightful and pertinent comments, perfectly crafted—and delightfully concise.
When Lord Mackay retired from this House in July 2022, after more than four decades of dedicated service, it said so much about his character that he did not use his final remarks to dwell solely on the great offices of state or the complex legislation he had championed. Instead, he drew our attention to the Prayers that begin our proceedings each day, stating:
“I believe that I have been sustained until now by answers to what we pray for at our opening every day”.—[Official Report, 20/7/22; col. 1984.]
That was the essence of James Mackay. He possessed a mind capable of mastering the most intricate complexities of constitutional law, with a heart that saw, valued and respected every individual who contributed to the life of Parliament.
Lord Mackay was a giant of the law, a faithful servant of the Crown and a deeply cherished Member of this House. We send our deepest, most heartfelt condolences to his family—his wife Bett and his son and daughters—his friends, his colleagues and all those who knew and loved him. He will be sorely missed.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her warm tribute to our late beloved friend and colleague, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. When I say “our” beloved colleague, I mean all of us—all here who knew him and heard him for over 40 years as a Member of this House. I can think of few, if any, Peers who were so sincerely liked and admired on all sides as was James Mackay.
The noble Baroness set out some of his extraordinary achievements: dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Lord Advocate, a Scottish Law Lord, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Chancellor for 10 years, a Knight of the Thistle and latterly honoured by his Queen as Lord Clerk Register of Scotland. Never were such a string of great garlands laid on the brow of a more humble man—not only humble in origin, though he was that, but a man of abiding humility, as our Leader said. Pomposity and pride were utterly alien to him, in the being or seeing of them.
The core of Lord Mackay’s life was the Bible and that higher power on which he long and regularly reflected. He observed the Lord’s day. When I was new in No. 10, I remember Switch explaining to me not only that you should not ring the Lord Chancellor on a Sunday but that you could not—the line would stay dead. His deep Christian faith moulded a bedrock of principle. As our Leader said, he never sought conflict, but he did not flinch from difficulties if the cause was just. As she said, as the first member of the Scottish Bar ever to sit on the Woolsack he set out to break restrictive practices in the law and open access to justice to more people. It did not make him popular, but he saw it through. Among his many legislative achievements were not only the Children Act, to which the noble Baroness rightly referred, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which brought clarity—like the Children Act—in difficult fields of morality and law.
Lord Mackay never intended to be a lawyer. He had the rare distinction of first class degrees in maths from both Edinburgh and Cambridge, where he was the senior wrangler—which was an achievement—and he taught maths before reading for the Bar. This was testament to the extraordinary clarity and precision of James Mackay’s mind, and his unerring ability to discern the truth of arguments and determine solutions: the very essence of a good judge. Yet how lightly he carried his great wisdom and learning, always expressed in the simplest language, spoken softly, as the noble Baroness said, and with the most beguiling humour. He had unimpeachable integrity and a fierce independence of mind which, perhaps, was his highland character. He graced that great office of Lord Chancellor, speaking truth and justice to power in the Cabinet, defending the rule of law and presiding in this House.
Lord Mackay was a kindly man, generous in his advice to others, courteous to a fault, with a twinkle in his eye and a quizzical air that made you feel, perhaps, that he was puzzled that others could not see the solutions as swiftly as he did. After he went to the Back Benches, he used to sit on the second row, behind the Minister. When you were at the Dispatch Box and you saw by your shoulder that hand creeping over the back of the Bench to haul himself to his feet, you knew you were in for either the most testing challenge to your arguments from one of your friends, or else the most simple and compelling exposition of the case that you had been floundering for an hour to try to explain to the House.
James Mackay was a great parliamentarian, a lover of this place and loved by it. Let us remember our brother as a righteous man. He was never judgmental, but nor was he afraid to judge between good and evil. He was a great reformer and a loving family man, buoyed for 68 years by his remarkable wife and three children, to whom our prayers and sympathy go out. This polity, this House, this United Kingdom will never see the like of Lord Chancellor Mackay again.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed really regrets that he cannot be here for these tributes, as he has been unavoidably detained in Scotland.
Much has been said already about Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s professional endeavours and immense achievements. A sense of him as a human being has also come through. He was universally admired, respected and held in deep affection, and I know from others that he was immensely kind to everyone in this place, no matter their experience. Sometimes it is those small gestures that are the most telling. My noble friend Lady Hamwee recounts such an incident when, as a fairly new Peer, she was sitting near the Throne, as we did then, and Lord Mackay was on the Woolsack. He noticed that she had a glass of water on the floor, vulnerable to passing feet, and he asked that the table he was using for his water be moved so that both could use it—a small gesture but an important one, especially to a new Member of this House.
We on these Benches salute Lord Mackay’s life and record our thanks for his long and very distinguished service to our country. We offer our condolences to his family and friends, and trust that the tributes paid provide them with some comfort.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow three such speeches. The cries of dismay that greeted the Lord Speaker’s sad news of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, were as loud on our Benches as anywhere else in the House, having, as we do, so many of his friends and colleagues from the legal world, Whitehall, Scotland and the House in general. On his ennoblement in 1979, he chose as his motto “manu justi”: by the hand of a just man. We have heard much of the relevance of this choice so far, and I will return to it.
I want to reflect on Lord Mackay’s 15 years as Lord Clerk Register, the oldest remaining great office of state in Scotland. This was originally a post connected with Scotland’s records, and he was therefore one of the four commissioners of the regalia of Scotland. On behalf of the Crown, they were responsible for looking after, among other things, the Stone of Scone. The stone was originally taken from Scone Palace, which is by Perth, in 1296. In 1996, thanks to the efforts of the Lord Speaker, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, it made it back as far as Edinburgh Castle.
Around the time of Covid, the commissioners of the regalia had to consider whether the stone would be moved from Edinburgh to Perth. I was the chairman of the relevant museum in Perth. The four commissioners consisted of three judges and Nicola Sturgeon, and they were in receipt of a tremendous amount of incredibly technical advice concerning security, conditions of light and humidity, historical context and so on—the fog of a difficult case. James stopped me one evening in the House and asked a simple question: how much would it cost to see the stone in Perth? I said it would be free. “It’s rather expensive in Edinburgh at the moment at £17”, he remarked. He had no other questions; he had cleared the fog and, shortly after, the commissioners, under his gentle and persuasive skills, reached their decision.
About a year after the stone had arrived at the new museum in Perth, I saw James at an event in Scotland and went to say hello. He immediately asked me what had happened to the stone in its first year. I told him that more than 250,000 people had come: a high multiple over the previous Edinburgh numbers. His eyes naturally sparkled and his smile broadened—an example of “manu justi”.
I was going to add one other anecdote from this House, but unfortunately it has already been given. I remember sitting next to a Conservative Minister at the Long Table and him telling me that the most scary part of being a Minister in the Chamber was not the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, getting up—he is not in his place now—or the Lord Speaker getting up in days of yore. It was the gnarled hand coming over the Bench when you knew that you had no satisfactory answer to whatever the question would be—that hand, of course, being the hand of the just man, the “manu justi”.
I end with one very simple other thing. When Mrs Thatcher offered James the role of Lord Chancellor, he told her that he was not a Conservative and it would not be appropriate. She replied, “Don’t be silly”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, from these Benches we echo the condolences and comments of the previous speakers. They have spoken so eloquently. Lord Mackay was kind, welcoming and generous in this House, and we on these Benches have been very grateful over the years for his gentle but persuasive advice and support.
A strict Sabbatarian and teetotaller in the best traditions of the Scottish Reformation, as we have heard, he would regularly refuse to work, travel or even give interviews that might be broadcast on a Sunday. He would regularly worship at the Free Presbyterian Church in Inverness, where he also served as an elder, and at All Souls Langham Place in my previous diocese of London.
Lord Mackay was a firm believer in moderation. At a gathering of the Faculty of Advocates, he had laid on a spread of tea and toast, complete with a tiny pot of honey. One of the lawyers in attendance contemplated the pot and remarked, “I see your Lordship keeps a bee”.
Lord Mackay was a great supporter of the Scottish Bible Society and was its honorary president until his death, championing the Bible and the role it played in forming our laws, behaviours and society. He even went as far as publishing a booklet which he distributed to Scottish lawyers, describing the Bible as the foundational sourcebook for the Scottish legal system. His legal mind was second to none, and he demonstrated a deep respect for the distinct traditions of Scottish and English law and the constitution.
Regarding the constitution, Lord Mackay would often refer to the biblical stories of Daniel and Esther, to the phrase “It is all about the law of the Medes and Persians”, and to the irrevocable and binding nature of a decree from a King. It was not just his knowledge of the constitution and its operation but his ability to sum up complex arguments that was impressive. Many of us will know, having done that, that it is not an easy task.
I note that Lord Hacking, in a debate on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill in 2022, revealed to the House that, in 1990, Lord Mackay had the rare honour of being one of the few people other than a Bishop to read Prayers in the House as the Bishop had been delayed.
Lord Mackay’s love of the highlands was legendary. He was never happier than when he was back in Inverness, but he was equally at home in London, where, until quite recently, he could be seen walking to the House from his home in the Temple, refusing all offers of assistance or a lift.
We keep Lord Mackay’s family and friends in our prayers. I will finish by using the words from the Church of Scotland’s burial service. We give thanks to God, through His son Jesus Christ, that for Lord Mackay all sorrows are ended, that death itself is past and that he has entered into the rest that remaineth assured for God’s people. We join these prayers with the assurance of God’s presence, that it will remain with Lord Mackay, his family and friends, in their loss and comfort. Amen.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add a few words about the truly remarkable way that Lord Mackay performed his duties to the House and the stamina that he exhibited.
Three things were different in Lord Mackay’s day. First, when you looked to the Woolsack, you would see him in his day dress of the full-bottomed wig, the stockings and buckled shoes which he wore every day.
Our timings were different. It was quite usual for the House to sit after 11 pm—indeed, it was not unusual to sit after midnight. I am recorded in Hansard speaking on the Scotland Bill at 2.30 am, but Lord Mackay was always there. He regarded it as his duty to remain on the Woolsack whenever the House sat and for how long it sat.
There was no team of Deputy Chairmen in his day. I think there was one person who could take Lord Mackay’s place when it was necessary, but that team did not exist. The rota of leaving the Woolsack from time to time was not there. I remember one day he sat there for eight hours in an important debate with only 20 minutes’ difference. The stamina he exhibited was quite extraordinary. I never heard him complain. It was his sense of duty that kept him going, and it was a truly remarkable performance.
There were three turns of events in Lord Mackay’s life which made all the difference. First, shortly before he was approached to be Lord Advocate, he had been offered and had accepted the position as a judge in Scotland. The Labour Lord Advocate who gave him that offer began to realise that Labour was going to lose the election, as indeed it did. He said to James, “I’m sorry, I’ve changed my mind”, and all the excitement of the offer of a place on the Bench disappeared overnight and James was very much taken aback. However, because he was not a judge and had not accepted that offer, he was available when Mrs Thatcher approached him and said, “Dean of Faculty, I need your help”, because the other candidate for Lord Advocate was not suitable. It was his five years as Lord Advocate that really cemented his relationship with Mrs Thatcher, which led ultimately to his appointment when Lord Havers fell ill, sadly, as Lord Chancellor. These were three events that all turned out in James’s favour. He was fortunate but, indeed, we were so fortunate too.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, I vividly remember another very hot summer day during the Brexit wars, when the relationship between the Government and the press had broken down. There was no trust and we were struggling with the intricacy of the Northern Ireland protocol. We needed a lawyer who could help.
I was tasked with ringing Lord Mackay, who was a towering figure for all lawyers younger than himself; he really brought us on and mentored us in our profession. I rang him; I swallowed my pride and I explained the issue, which, of course he grasped, in under three seconds. Three minutes later, I saw him trotting out to College Green, where he was able not only to give live press interviews and put the matter to rest, but he spent the next couple of hours in baking sunlight explaining behind the scenes to members of the press how the law worked and what the answer was. We were fortunate to have him in our House for so long.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words of my own. As has been said, Lord Mackay of Clashfern brought to public life a wonderful combination of brilliance, courtesy, principle and faith. He was formidable, but never vain. He was learned, but never showy. He was firm in judgment but always humane. He was a proud Scot and a good friend to me.
Robert Burns’s lines, written in 1784, “Epitaph on my own Friend”, uncannily capture why all of us who knew him will miss James so much:
The friend of man, the friend of truth;
The friend of age, and guide of youth:
Few hearts like his, with virtue warm’d,
Few heads with knowledge so inform’d:
If there’s another world, he lives in bliss;
If there is none, he made the best of this.
Our thoughts today are with Bett, who, throughout some 68 years of marriage, was his formidable rock and guide. God bless her and her family at this time.
UK Migration
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sahota
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of people migrating into the UK in each of the last five years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Net migration increased from 2021 to record levels in 2023, reaching 944,000 at its peak. Since 2023, numbers have fallen substantially. Net migration fell to 171,000 by the end of 2025—an 82% decrease compared to the peak and the lowest level since the pandemic.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. I congratulate the Government on reducing net migration from, as the Minister said, its peak of 900,000 to 171,000, an impressive reduction of approximately 82%. However, despite this significant progress, a recent opinion poll suggests that almost half the public still believe that immigration is continuing to increase. This misconception is being exploited by the right-wing political parties and risks creating unnecessary division and disharmony within our communities. What more can the Government do to ensure that the public are made aware of the accurate immigration figures and are better informed about the progress that has been made?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. Immigration is a very sensitive issue, but it is also multifaceted. The figures on net migration are falling, the number of asylum claims being processed is increasing, and we have to deal with the small boats, the numbers of which are reducing. But we also have the very valuable contribution that many people who have come to this country make—from doctors to bus drivers, to factory workers, to people involved in our society as a whole. I therefore say to those on the far right who seek to exploit this that we are a cohesive, multicultural society, and we have people here who are contributing. We have to meet certain challenges, and this Government are prepared to meet them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious that, under the points-based system, many people came into this country on a variety of visas. However, in the last two years, over half a million people have acquired British citizenship. What assessment have the Government made of the Home Secretary’s proposed policy change to extend the right to acquire ILR—and, I assume, citizenship—to 10 years, in terms of the number of people who will gain British citizenship in the next decade?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We keep that matter under review. As the noble Baroness will know, we introduced an immigration Bill in the House of Commons last week, which will bring significant changes. This Government are trying to get control of migration and citizenship issues across the board, and we are doing our best to, dare I say it, rectify some of the difficulties of the previous 14 years.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. The Minister has rightly put the contribution that migration brings to this country at the forefront. It is in all our interests to make sure that people integrate into our society as rapidly as possible, so can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to speed that process up and make it more accessible? Perhaps I might refer him to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who has just produced a report on such matters, including the role of diasporas in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have not yet had a chance to read my noble friend’s report, but undoubtedly, I will read it—because he will send it to me if nobody else does. We have to recognise that we are a multicultural society. The people who, historically, have come to the United Kingdom have had ties to it through many Commonwealth countries. The people who are coming here are bringing skills and making important contributions to our society; we should recognise that, and we should celebrate and respect their differences and their different faiths. Through my noble friend Lord Lemos, who is Faith Minister, the Government are trying to ensure that we recognise that contribution, and it is a constant challenge to make sure that we do so. One of the great challenges is making sure we have a strong, managed migration system, so that people can see that it is transparent and fair.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, children coming into the country are an important part of our migration and immigration. What scientific methods are currently being used to assess the age of our immigrants, and how many appeals against those determinations have been upheld? I declare an interest as the previous chair of the Home Office’s age estimation committee.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness the exact figures on the appeals, but I will look into that and write to her. We are trying to ensure that we achieve accurate age assessment through high levels of technology, and we are introducing that technology at ports of entry to ensure that we can make a rough estimate of the age of individuals arriving in the United Kingdom, and whether they are over or under 18. I will write to the noble Baroness in due course to confirm all those details.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government have a computerised system in place that can accurately track both entry into and exit from the United Kingdom, and therefore give the Government an accurate picture of who is here and what their status is at any one time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very important point, and knowing not just who arrives but who leaves is certainly a key issue. We are trying to modernise that infrastructure. In particular, we are looking at how we can use AI to improve the assessment of the information we have. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Viscount has said and respond to him on what we are doing on those issues.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, the Health Foundation has just published a significant report with the latest evidence on immigration and the NHS. The report finds that the average person who migrates to the UK is more likely to work in the NHS, less likely to use it, and significantly contributes to NHS funds. Around one in five staff working in the NHS are non-British nationals. Will my noble friend the Minister consider this latest evidence, particularly when it comes to workers in the NHS and in social care? It will be significant in helping our health and social care workforce.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at the report my noble friend has cited. I also want to place on record my thanks to and recognition of the value of all those who contribute to the National Health Service. As my noble friend has said, many of them originally came to this country as non-British nationals and are now naturalised Britons. Their contributions should never be underestimated. However, that does not take away from the fact that we need to ensure that those Britons who are currently unemployed and who aspire to work in the health service can also do so. One of the objectives of the Government’s migration programme is to ensure that we build up the skills and talent of people of British heritage who were born in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it has recently been revealed that, despite the previous Government placing restrictions on dependants for those on health and social care visas, people are still bringing in huge numbers of dependants. Some 12 such visas were issued to nationals of Cameroon, who were able to bring 180 people with them. I do not say this to make any great political point, but I am sure the Minister agrees that this is not how the system is supposed to operate. In the light of that, do the Government have any plans to rectify this situation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. We have seen some reports on the issue of dependants of health and social care visa holders remaining exempt from the surcharge, and on such visa holders bringing in family members. We are looking at this, but some aspects of the stories currently in the press are incorrect, and it is incorrect to link dependant visas granted in a given year with worker visas granted in the same period. I will look at the issue the noble Lord has mentioned and send him a note; but, while he himself has not been inaccurate, there are some inaccuracies in the reporting of this.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What sustainable rate of net inward migration would the Government like to see going forward?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Unlike previous Governments, we are not setting a net migration target. We are trying to ensure—and our success in this was proved in my initial Answer to my noble friend—that we manage migration in an effective way. We have seen a massive drop in the net migration figure from when the noble Lord’s Government were in power. Setting a target would achieve exactly what Conservative Prime Ministers have done throughout the last 14 years: set a target but introduce no policy objectives to achieve it, and fail to take into account the needs of the British people and the British economy.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, there are roughly 7,000 vacancies for doctors in the NHS. According to the BMA’s records, nearly 2,000 registered refugees have a medical qualification, and some of them have been waiting over two years for their asylum application to be processed. Would it not be a good idea to have a system whereby, over a period of time, if someone’s asylum claim has not been processed, they are allowed to work, pay taxes and contribute to the country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With respect to the noble Lord, I prefer to tackle the problem from the other direction. I prefer to ensure, as the Government are trying to do now, that we speed up asylum processing and claims and get decisions on asylum. That way, those who are entitled to asylum have it granted, those who are not are returned to a safe country, and we process that in a speedy way. We have put investment and resources into that. It is not right and proper to ensure the possibility of work while asylum claims are being processed, and we are trying to speed up that processing.
Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what diplomatic steps they intend to take following the absence of consensus at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that took place in April and May.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear order and the UK remains fully committed to it. It is a treaty that has kept us safe for over half a century, underpinning international security by constraining the spread of nuclear weapons. Although it is disappointing that consensus could not be reached in New York, the review conference covered a thorough examination of global progress to implement NPT obligations over the past four years so as to identify positive progress and those areas that remain challenging. We will continue to work with partners across the world to strengthen implementation of the treaty across all three of its pillars.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will appreciate that the threat of nuclear war is as great as it ever was. The fact that the NPT did not reach a consensus was very disappointing, as she says. Will the Government continue, with all the energy they have, to pursue the things that they pursued very well before the treaty, including the UK’s capacity in verification science, nuclear safeguards, strategic stability and arms control negotiations, and, in particular, diplomatic engagement? Diplomatic engagement is the absolute prime issue in keeping us safe before we reach world disarmament, which we may never reach.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I am happy to give her the assurances that she seeks.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, one of the greatest issues facing nuclear weapons non-proliferation is that of Iran. Both sides of this House are agreed that Iran must never develop or acquire nuclear weapons. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s latest assessment of what progress Iran is making towards developing nuclear weapons and the effect of the recent United States strikes on that capacity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we are deeply concerned about the behaviour of Iran with regards to its nuclear programme. We are committed to doing what is necessary to prevent Iran ever obtaining the use of nuclear weaponry. As for the current conflict that we have recently seen resumed, we are all concerned about the impact that that is having, and indeed whether or not that is having the effect within Iran that we would all wish to see.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, commitment is not enough. There is a mood going around the capitals of the world that Ukraine would be in much better shape today if it had kept its nuclear weapons. This has led a number of other countries to say that they want to be in on the NPT existing nuclear power list as well. This is a very dangerous situation, particularly as it is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce these things—at any moment they could be produced by non-state actors and end up in irresponsible hands. Will the Minister put a little more strength into the commitment of this Government—indeed, all Governments—to see that we make sure that the whole NPT system does not crumble under very loose and general pressures now going on?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am I happy to make that clear. The failure to reach consensus on this occasion, given the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves, is not a complete surprise. The President did not put the text for consideration in the end, because it was clear that the US was not going to back it. It was an omission of text, rather than a disagreement over the substance of what was said. That is why that did not happen. It is in no way an indication that the United Kingdom or any of our partners or allies are intending to turn away from this treaty. As the noble Lord said, it is the cornerstone that has prevented proliferation of nuclear weaponry for five decades now, and we are committed to it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the UK Government liaise with France, which is taking over the chairmanship, to ensure that what has been agreed is maintained and that the technical expertise is also maintained? Can the Minister comment on the committee that the Government are setting up in the House of Commons, sadly with no representation from this House, to scrutinise UK nuclear expenditure? Given that the workings of that committee are going to mostly be classified, how does that help public engagement with understanding the issue, or help to secure commitment to maintaining non-proliferation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid that I know absolutely nothing about the committee that is being set up at the other end of the building.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will follow on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about our diplomatic capabilities and technical capabilities, which we have always contributed strongly to this process. The FCDO is in some degree of institutional turmoil, seeing significant regular changes in leadership, and we know that it is expecting significant cuts. Can the Minister assure me that these essential capabilities will be maintained? More than that, do the Government understand that, yes, we have to think about security and our defence, but diplomacy is absolutely crucial to our future security?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the FCDO is not in turmoil. The way I look at it is that defence, diplomacy and development work closely together. They are all needed in order to keep this country safe and to ensure stability. We have focus and diplomatic focus, despite the fact that we are making changes to the structure of the organisation, which were left incomplete following the merger of two large government departments. Our commitment to defence, diplomacy and development remains as true as it ever has been.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not find it slightly embarrassing that she should give the answer that she did to the noble Lord that she knows nothing about a committee formed in the House of Commons in relation to such an important matter?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Not at all. My job is as the Minister with responsibility for development in Africa. I am confident that there are Members of this House who are very able, should they so wish, in order to respond to the suggestions of the noble Lord, to set up a committee to examine these matters and to do so in a more public way than has been deemed appropriate. I am sure Members in the Commons had their reasons for setting their committee up in the way that they did. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of Members of this House to address those issues in the way that they see fit.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say something about New START, the treaty which was the last remaining bilateral arms control agreement between the US and Russia, which has expired? What is the future of that treaty? I know that is a slightly separate issue, but it is related.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That might be a question better addressed to my colleague at the Ministry of Defence. My understanding of these issues is that our position remains consistent with that of previous Administrations. I do not have anything new that would be particularly illuminating in response to the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister expand on what the Government are doing regarding working with international partners to rebuild confidence ahead of any future discussions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely committed to this treaty, as are our partners and allies. Consensus was not achieved, which is regrettable—it is always better if you can have that—but the principles and the purpose of this treaty remain supported. It is essential that that remains the case, and we shall do whatever we need to do diplomatically, as my noble friend encourages us to do, to make sure that that is the case.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What diplomatic exchanges have the Government had with Mauritius over the nuclear capabilities of Diego Garcia, in the light of their wish to give the freehold away?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We had extensive discussion and advice on this issue while we were debating the relevant legislation. We are confident that obligations under the relevant treaties on non-proliferation and under the Pelindaba treaty can be met as a result of that decision and that legislation.
Artificial Intelligence: Vaccine Technology
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential for artificial intelligence to contribute to developments in vaccine technology.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The results from Cambridge and the DIOSynVax programme, primarily funded by the Government through Innovate UK, is a good example of how the Government are taking AI’s potential in vaccine technology seriously. AI’s most credible contribution to vaccine development is in the design stage, including predicting antigen structure and binding and predicting how pathogens evade immunity. Our £137 million AI for science strategy is funding some key enablers for AI use in drug discovery, including in medical research and engineering biology.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. If the House does not realise, what has happened in Cambridge is the first use of AI to design a vaccine candidate being used in human trials, with the possibility of being able to deal with a broad range of viruses. One of the researchers involved said that it is
“amazing what we can do with it for the good of humanity”.
Unfortunately, this new technology may also, in turn, potentially pose a great threat to humanity. So I ask my noble friend: what work is going on to ensure that this type of development is subject to the strictest controls and that, in future, no bad actors can in any way use this new technology to pose a threat to humanity?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I completely agree that this technology is hugely important for the good it can do in making vaccines and new medicines. It will change our ability to treat and prevent diseases. It is also true that the same technology can be used for bad things. Like many technologies, it can be misused. Many things are in place already: it is illegal, of course, to make chemical and biological weapons, and the Government take very seriously the threat that can come from new technologies. The biological security strategy was published last year. There is £580 million in the defence investment plan for Porton Down infrastructure for a national biosecurity centre, and £115 million to strengthen defences against AI risk. This is a very active area of work.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the development of Evo 2—which is an AI biological model with 9.3 trillion nucleotides extending over 128,000 different species, including humans—means that there is now a capability to produce proteins, molecular structures and even genomes, and therefore artificial pathogens. So is it time for the UK to have mandatory enforcement and regulation of functional-base synthetic DNA?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The point about the technology is that an enormous amount of good comes from it, and we must not forget that. But yes, there are risks, and we are looking at nucleic acid synthesis using the programmes now available to do that, and we are looking at what can be regulated. Initially it will be a voluntary process, but we are looking at the options to understand and control the use of new synthesis of materials through nucleic acids.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we should all recognise the immense potential of AI in this field. But, on regulation, will the Minister explicitly confirm and ensure that a human-in-command approach will apply to any use of AI in vaccine approvals and pharmacovigilance, so that decisions on approvals and safety monitoring are always taken by qualified human experts, rather than delegated to algorithms or an automated system alone?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The MHRA is one of the most important and best regulators in the world for medicines, and none of the requirements for an AI-assisted vaccine design is different from those for a normal one. In other words, it has to be looked at in the same way, with the same sort of safety requirements. The MHRA is looking at how it can use AI, but certainly as part of a human-linked process. There will be people making these decisions.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, the best recent example of vaccine technology is the pandemic and Covid, and the UK rightly champions the 100-day mission to develop vaccines against any future pandemics. As I am sure the Minister is aware, AI can rapidly compress that discovery phase through genomic surveillance, lab validation and manufacturing. Given that, how is AI being incorporated into the 100-day mission?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the 100-day mission was endorsed at the 2021 G7, and I was very involved in that process. AI will be a critical part of how we do vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, and I am optimistic that this makes the 100-day mission really achievable, particularly for vaccines. But—and this is an important but—not for all organisms: it is not always the case that you can get a vaccine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, if this technology is used for malign purposes, it does not really matter whether that happens in the UK or elsewhere in the world. What action is being taken and how confident are we that there is scope for international agreement, particularly among the major players on the international scene, to develop the necessary safeguards to protect all of us on this planet?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is a very hot topic of discussion. A lot is going on between nations and it is a big topic at the G7, where the UK is leading on some of these discussions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, we know that public confidence in vaccines is essential if there is to be good uptake and if they are to be effective. What are the Government planning to do to ensure that there is public confidence in AI-generated vaccines, and have they considered involving community and faith groups in this? Those are key to ensuring public confidence in this area.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Public acceptance of vaccination is very high in this country, and that is built on trust, part of which comes from the regulator. The regulator in this country is extremely rigorous and will make sure that all the usual things that a vaccine needs to go through will be gone through, whether or not AI has been involved in the process somewhere. There will be no change in the regulations as a result of that, except where there may be opportunities to get better safety profiles because of the use of AI. That is important. As noted, it is crucial that public engagement with this happens. The MHRA is good at doing that, and it will be an important part of continuing to build vaccine confidence in the UK.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the potential for AI in developing vaccine technology. However, AI models are as good as the data we put in to train them. I therefore have two questions for my noble friend the Minister. What steps are the Government taking to close the data gap for those from ethnic minorities and for women and pregnant women to be included in trials? How are they working with international partners, including the WHO, to expand the database so that we achieve health equity for all?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
In the UK there is a programme called Our Future Health, designed to enrol 5 million participants. It is very clearly designed to be an accurate representation of the UK population as a whole, with all our ethnic diversity and across age ranges. That is an important data resource for the future. The Health Data Research Service will also be part of making sure that data are appropriately curated, ready and available for use. The regulators already have processes in place to make sure that women, women of childbearing age and others are included in clinical trials. That work will continue.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, given that this ground-breaking work was done in Cambridge by both a university group and its spin-out biotech company, can the Minister reassure the House about access to the intellectual property beyond the University of Cambridge?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Obviously, the intellectual property that is being laid down as part of this process will belong to the university, the funder to some extent, and the company. The exploitation of IP demands that there is clarity on IP ownership in order to get the inward investment that will be necessary to turn this from what is a very early-stage project into something that might become a product.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if a foreign tech firm uses NHS patient data records to train its AI to discover a new vaccine, what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that the NHS is not charged full market price for those vaccines?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is precisely why the Health Data Research Service is being set up: to make sure that we have a place where data can be collated properly and accessed in an appropriate way, and that the benefit returns to the NHS and to patients in this country as the data is used.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the specialist committee in your Lordships’ House on childhood vaccinations, I ask my noble friend the Minister what interaction there is between the Department of Health and DSIT to give people greater accessibility to vaccinations. There has been a downturn in availability for people to access those vaccines.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. That is largely a DHSC responsibility. DSIT makes sure that there is a real pipeline of new vaccines coming through, that the environment is right for companies to form and grow in this country and that we are at the forefront of a new generation of vaccines, as we now are. Of course, we then need to make sure that those are available and accessible, and that is continuing work by the UK Health Security Agency and the DHSC.
Venezuela Earthquakes
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bi
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the scale of humanitarian need in Venezuela following the earthquakes on 24 June; and what (1) immediate, and (2) long-term, support they intend to provide in addition to the £2 million UK aid match contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Venezuela earthquake appeal.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we extend our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the devastating earthquakes in Venezuela. Millions have been affected, with thousands of fatalities and over 16,000 injured. The UK has responded rapidly, mobilising a £5.8 million humanitarian package, including UK international search and rescue, emergency medical team support and humanitarian experts. We have also aid-matched £2 million to the DEC appeal and continue to support British nationals.
Baroness Bi (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and for the generosity and speed of the response shown by the department. As vice-chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee, I am delighted to say that the Venezuela earthquake appeal has now raised £12 million, including £2 million of the aid match to which the Minister refered; that is a credit to the generosity of both the UK public and the Government. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to respond to the needs of the survivors of the earthquake, nearly 40% of whom are homeless and facing disease in a disaster where, as of today, 3,800 people are known to have died and an estimated 50,000 are still missing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right—this is a truly devastating situation, and its true extent is yet to be revealed. The United Kingdom will, of course, play its part in supporting those who are displaced, those who have been separated from their loved ones and those who are unable to continue with their livelihood or access health services, particularly maternal health services, in the current situation.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s response to this truly devastating earthquake. As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aid Match, I thank the Government for the £2 million they have offered, but, as the vice-chair of the DEC says, the public have raised £12 million. Will the Government consider raising the contribution from aid match? Will they perhaps also persuade the Treasury that rather than having the money taken out of existing development funds, it should be genuinely additional, so that aid match adds money and the public can influence how our aid money is spent?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to put money into the Venezuelan response, but we can all work out that every penny we put into one response leaves us less for the next crisis. We have an El Niño year; we are about to start hurricane season. We have food insecurity across Africa because of the conflict in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible for me just to make commitments about what we will and will not do from this Dispatch Box in such a serious situation. It has been a truly global response in Venezuela, and that is very good to see. We have seen a particularly strong response from Latin America, which is encouraging, and the United States has also played a leading role. It has been a good example of how the international community can come together and co-ordinate to great effect.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s response—helping is a good thing—and we also welcome support from the Disasters Emergency Committee. As has been said, the British public have been extremely generous. What assessment has the Minister made of the failures of the Venezuelan state in this matter? It has been truly shocking to see the response of what was the Maduro Government and the hollowing out in these circumstances. There has been a dreadful local response. International partners have stepped in to help. What assessment have the Government made of this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. It has been devastating, dreadful and heartbreaking. A country that should be prosperous and successful and that should provide a good place to live and succeed for its population has been badly led by a corrupt regime. I suspect we agree on much of that analysis. What needs to happen now is the physical rebuilding and the support for the population, but the Venezuelan state really needs to look to itself. It has some serious questions to answer about how it has allowed the impact of this to be more devastating than it could have been, and about what it needs to do next to rebuild its economy, society and the country more generally.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, as London Fire Commissioner, I deployed international search and rescue responders many times to a series of catastrophic international events ranging from Nepal to Turkey, with considerable loss of life. As ever, London firefighters and many other firefighters from services around the country have acquitted themselves with great courage in very difficult circumstances. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that with the change of ownership from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, there has been a proper conversation between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and that department to ensure the sustainability of that model, which the UK should take such pride in?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely. Our international search and rescue capability—I think 58 team members went to Venezuela along with dogs to help with the search and rescue—is globally recognised; it is outstanding. My neighbour Jim is one of them and we should all be incredibly proud of them. I can confirm that it is our intention to continue to provide this service and this capability whenever and wherever we can.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 14 major hospitals have either been destroyed or very seriously damaged, and it will take a long time for them to be repaired. In the meantime, there is obviously a crucial need for tented hospitals. In this respect, it is obviously good news that the UK Emergency Medical Team, UK EMT, has deployed a team to set up one such hospital, but there is a need for much more to be done. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that Venezuela already suffered from a chronic shortage of qualified anaesthetists and orthopaedic surgeons? Are these two areas where the UK could provide more focus?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Venezuela lacks many things, not least the 8 million people who have removed themselves from the country in recent years because they did not wish to live under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. There are many gaps in the capability of the Venezuelan state. The right response to this is to not do what has happened in response to previous disasters. I point the noble Lord to Haiti and the response after that earthquake, where we saw a flooding of capability and equipment but a real lack of co-ordination, duplication, inefficiency and a failure to respond. It was of its time, and it is not how we want to do things now. It is good that we are now collaborating much more with international partners and local agencies on the ground, because that is the right thing to do for that population that needs that help so urgently.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I also welcome the support given by the British Government and I congratulate the Minister, who will have played a personal part in making sure that there has been co-ordination in relation to it. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, Venezuela will have long-term needs in the light of what has happened as well as the immediate crisis that is going on. What are the British Government doing to identify what those long-term needs are and how we might help to meet them?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is an important point. There are without doubt going to be long-term needs to strengthen the state, as there were before the earthquake happened, but those have been brought into sharp relief since the devastating incidence of the two quakes. Before this happened, we were the only G7 country with a functioning team in Caracas. We had a chargé there who has led the team incredibly well through very difficult circumstances. We will maintain that position, and we will work with partners, allies and organisations within the country to work out what the right role is for the United Kingdom in this context. The best response is no longer to try to provide everything and to act as a pseudo state; that is not what we wish to do. We need to work in a way that recognises local leadership, local custom, local language and local provision. The role of faith leadership in Venezuela is important too. That is the way that we will go about this.
European Entry and Exit System
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, there have clearly been serious issues across Europe this year in relation to the new European entry system and it is no secret that implementation has been poor. However, the European Union seems to be under the impression that the new entry and exit system is working well. What discussions have the Government had with the European Union about improving the system?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are in constant dialogue with the European Union. We are working closely with European member states to ensure that the juxtaposed ports have the right technology and processes to enable travel to be as smooth as possible for UK citizens. This has included providing £3.5 million in funding to each of the three ports to help make their changes to infrastructure. We will continue to discuss with European partners how we can ensure that we have as smooth an operation as possible in the interests of both the European Union and British travellers.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the root cause of the EES misery that British people are suffering is Brexit. There is no running away from that. But my enthusiasm for the EU does not blind me to its flaws, and this is one of them. Will the Government convene an emergency UK-EU meeting with the European Commission before 20 July—perhaps this can be one of Keir Starmer’s leaving presents—to address the disruption and shambles that is the EES, unfortunately, and protect British travellers during the summer peak?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that, were we still a member of the European Union, this issue would not be a problem. She knows how I voted in the referendum and she knows that this is a consequence of that referendum and decision. Having said that, we are where we are. The European Union is responsible for its management of the schemes. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, we are in constant contact. She asked for an emergency summit; we are holding a summit continuously. We are in constant contact with the authorities and we hope to ensure that the transfer of passengers through the three juxtaposed ports is smooth and efficient.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have a general question for the noble Lord. I thank him for what he is doing to try to smooth things for passengers from here across Europe. Is it right that a British passenger has to check in for each new country in the EU that they visit, whereas European passengers coming here from the EU check in just once? Is that something that he could alleviate in the discussions he is having with our European partners?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The operation of the EES is a matter for the European Community and its member states. There are different approaches, but my understanding now is that the European Union is trying to get a consistent approach from European countries across the board. It is not for us as a third-party state to have that intervention with European partners, but we can raise issues and we are doing so. We are looking at how we can off-set the concerns that are raised and are trying to ensure smooth transfer, particularly in the three ports that we have—Eurostar, Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would not the Minister agree that this is an interesting example of how, when we thought we would take back control, actually we have given over control in areas where we could have been part of the solution?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, as ever, is wise, moderate and considered. He makes points that I may share on behalf of the UK Government, but I say to him again that, sadly, we are where we are.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
A few months ago I flew to Málaga, where they had decided not to apply the new system. Is it possible to persuade the EU to put off the system until October?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The system is operational. I have travelled to a European country in the last two months and had to ensure that my credentials were checked and established in the proper way. The operation of the scheme is a matter for the European Union. We are a third-party country. We are trying to ensure that it is as smooth as possible. We have had discussions with our European partners and will continue to do so. As I said earlier, we have put in some £3.5 million of UK taxpayers’ money to ensure that the challenges are at least ameliorated as far as possible.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I sense this is going against the masochistic mood of the House, but how is a failure of the EU our fault? The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in asking her question, said her fondness for the EU does not blind her to the fact that this is a chaotic and badly implemented scheme—for everyone, not just for us. Any third-country national trying to enter the EU will run up against these problems. How is that our responsibility? If there is a bad immigration system in Uzbekistan or Venezuela, that is not our fault. Incredibly, not everything is the fault of Brexit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me. It is not our responsibility and it is an EU scheme, but it is our problem if lorries and cars are backed up at Dover, if our citizens cannot get into a European country easily and if we have that general mess. The point the noble Baroness made, which I thought he would have recognised given that he is a strong advocate of Brexit, was that, had we not had the referendum and the Brexit decision, we would have been part of the decision-making process on that very system. Now we are not; we are a third-party country because of the decision he advocated, which I remind the House I opposed.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, in the Government’s discussions with the French and other authorities, are we looking at the possibility that people could register in advance of travelling so that they would be good for two years rather than having to do it at the time of their first journey?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, my noble friend tempts me. The operation of this scheme is one for the European Union. We have made a number of representations to see how we can make this more efficient and simpler from the UK perspective. That includes putting in place contingency plans with the police and others for any potential back-up at the ports in the United Kingdom. It also includes working closely and raising issues with all European nations to make sure that we can make this as smooth as possible. I cannot be the European Union, even for the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. What I can be is the UK’s representative making representations about how we can ensure that, from our perspective, this system works as well as possible.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, having spent many years of my former life in the airline industry and then commuting to Brussels and Strasbourg, I must say in all sincerity that post Brexit the UK really did step up. As a country, we have not made life difficult for EU citizens to come here as tourists and in jobs that they may do. However, we have found that a number of member states, though not every state, continue to make life extremely difficult—I have no idea why—for British travellers, lorries and various others crossing the channel. This is about urging the Government; I know the Minister is trying very hard, but it is called a quid pro quo. We are where we are. This is 10 years on. If we take this in good faith and treat our EU passengers well, which we do, it is not beyond the wit of man for it to be reciprocated for British travellers going abroad.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If there are problems in the system, they are not problems for the British but for any third-party nation. We just happen to be a third-party nation now and I imagine that it is also a problem for Americans and others wishing to enter the EU. In that sense, I sort of agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—something I never expected to say—that it is for the EU to sort out. We are trying to make sure that we help as much as we can to sort out that issue so that it does not impact on UK citizens.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this is perhaps a rather self-interested question because, like some other Members, I will be travelling to Europe during the Summer Recess. Of the three major ports—Dover, Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel—does my noble friend have any idea in advance which is likely to find itself under the greatest strain as a result of this system and, as a result, get the resources to alleviate that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope my noble friend enjoys his holiday. We are trying to have no problems at any of the three juxtaposed ports. If he wants to, he can look at GOV.UK and the Foreign Office website to get regular live updates as to what is happening at each port. I say again that, if there are particular challenges at a particular time, we have contingency plans in place—particularly for the roads approaching Dover, with Kent Police and the Medway authorities—to ensure that we manage them in an effective way. I am hoping for a smooth transfer, but I urge all noble Lords and others who are traveling to examine websites, look at the information and, as ever, give sufficient time to travel, whatever happens.
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement and thank Philip Rycroft for his thorough review. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures to tackle foreign interference in our democracy and recognise the value of Philip Rycroft’s review. However, an independent review is not a substitute for ministerial engagement with political parties where recommendations affect the rules by which political parties compete with one another. The Government have traditionally sought broad political agreement before legislating.
The threats posed by hostile states are real and growing, so protecting the integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our elections. Every political party represented in this House has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are robustly addressed. However, we remain concerned about both the process the Government have adopted and aspects of the proposals now being taken forward.
As my noble friend Lady Finn said during last week’s debate, there is a simple constitutional principle at stake. The rules governing political finance are not ordinary legislation; they are the rules by which political parties compete with one another. Governments are therefore the trustees of those rules, not their proprietors. The reason why that convention exists is straightforward: Governments should not use their parliamentary majority unilaterally to legislate on the finances of their political opponents. Once that principle is abandoned, it becomes easier for future Governments of any political persuasion to do the same and risks importing the kind of hyper-partisan approach to electoral law that has proved so damaging elsewhere.
For many years, Governments of all political persuasions have recognised that changes in this area should, where possible, be developed through consultation and broad cross-party agreements, rather than imposed unilaterally by the Government of the day. That is why the Government’s approach is so disappointing. Rather than waiting for Philip Rycroft’s review to conclude, Ministers introduced the Representation of the People Bill before publishing their response. They have now chosen to cherry-pick two recommendations from that review and insert them into the Bill through significant government amendments during the stages in the other place without first engaging in proper cross-party talks. Simply informing political parties of changes after they have already been drafted is not consultation. Why did the Government not publish a consultation paper, formal or informal, or convene proper cross-party discussions before deciding to legislate?
Constitutional conventions exist precisely because changes to the rules of democratic competition should not come as a surprise to those expected to operate within them. An independent review is valuable, but it is not a suitable political consensus on the rules governing political competition. However, the Government have immediately accepted two recommendations from the Rycroft review—a moratorium on cryptocurrency and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors—before publishing their full response to the review or consulting political parties on how these proposals should operate.
More troubling still, these measures are intended to have a retrospective effect from March this year. Political parties are therefore expected to comply with legal requirements whose detailed legislative provisions have not yet been debated by Parliament or, indeed, published in draft. That is full-on retrospective legislation and is constitutionally very difficult to justify.
More fundamentally, why was the Representation of the People Bill introduced before the Rycroft review had reported? Given that there was no imminent general election, why did Ministers not pause the Bill for a matter of weeks to bring forward a coherent package of reforms? Alternatively, if the Government wished to proceed urgently with electoral reforms, why were the political finance provisions not introduced in separate legislation, as previous Governments have done? Can the Minister also outline the consultation that has taken place with the Electoral Commission, parliamentary authorities and political parties on these proposals? What additional resources will be provided to ensure that any new regulatory responsibilities can be implemented effectively?
Finally, legislation is only one part of the answer. Effective enforcement is equally important. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what additional resource will be provided to the Electoral Commission, and to any other enforcement bodies, to ensure that these reforms can be properly implemented and enforced?
Good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires proper consultation, careful scrutiny and, in this area above all, broad political consensus. We will continue to support proportionate measures that genuinely strengthen our democracy against foreign interference, but we urge the Government to return to the long-established constitutional principle that the rules governing political competition should be made with political parties, not simply imposed upon them. Protecting our democracy should unite Parliament and not become another area for partisan legislation.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to ask the Minister to remind us what consultation the previous Conservative Government carried out with either his party or mine over, for example, changing the electoral system for elections of mayors or expense limits for general elections.
Instead, to go to the heart of the matter, these Benches very much share the concerns set out in the Rycroft review about the risk of foreign money influencing, or even corrupting, our politics. We therefore broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the report. However, I have some concerns about the intended speed of implementation, some of the loopholes that will remain, and one particular issue that is not mentioned in the Government’s response, which I suspect the Minister can successfully predict.
I turn first to the intended pace of implementation. On recommendation 4, regarding non-party campaigners and related issues, the Government have said they will
“commit to consultation and further work”.
They are not even committing to action on that one. On recommendation 14, on internet advertising, the Government have promised “proposals in due course”. On recommendation 16, on think tanks and associated issues, the Government’s commitment is that they will
“consider opportunities for further work”.
I fear that you can almost hear the wheels of Whitehall grinding to a halt as you consider that phrase. I hope the Minister can set out clear timelines for the Government’s intended progress on those recommendations, which are, after all, on substantive major issues such as the role of online advertising.
On loopholes, I have raised before the question of the Government’s apparent inconsistent approach to politics and the media. They appear to be sticking to a significant control test for companies that permits greater foreign ownership of a company that donates to our politics than is permitted for a company that owns one of our newspapers. It remains unclear to me why the Government think that a lower level of protection against foreign interference in our politics than in our media is appropriate. I hope the Minister might be able to clarify that.
The Government are proposing—in a broad sense, this is a welcome step in the right direction—introducing a new threshold of £2,230, above which pre-campaign donations to individual candidates would need to be declared. That sounds a reasonable threshold, until one remembers that British-wide political parties will typically stand 633 candidates across the country, or, if not contesting the Speaker’s seat, 632 candidates. Therefore, 632 lots of some £2,000 gets you to nearly £1.5 million-worth of donations that could be made legally, legitimately and in secret, unless the Government also propose to go a little further and introduce aggregation requirements around those donations to individual candidates. I hope the Minister can tell us what is intended on that front.
Indeed, the Government Statement is rather silent on whether similar protection will be extended to, for example, elections for the Mayor of Greater Manchester or the Mayor of London. Those, among other elected posts at other levels of election, have important power, and, although we have not yet had a track record of having to worry about foreign money in such elections, it would seem to me prudent to extend such protections.
Finally, I turn to the consolidation of election law and the dangers, costs and complexity that arise from the messy and fragile state of election law, In the past, I have used the parallel of a teenager with a messy bedroom—the Government never quite decide that now is the time to start cleaning up that bedroom The Rycroft review said:
“I urge Government to consider”
action in this area. Because that was a boxed-out urging of the Government to consider, rather than a formal recommendation, the Government’s response so far has been silent on that particular part of the Rycroft review. I hope the Minister, having been urged by Rycroft to consider this issue, can tell us what consideration the Government have come to.
To push on one specific example, consolidation does not have to a be a big project, put off for ever only to be done in one big bang. It is possible to pick off little individual issues. For example, it is possible to look at redundant legislation on the statute book, the repeal of which would have no or only minimal knock-on consequences. It is a bit like picking up the dirty crisp packet from the middle of the floor—we are not going to tidy the whole bedroom but can at least pick up some of the easy bits. I have one specific question. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 seems to me to be the perfect crisp packet—an easy thing that could be picked off and repealed under the Representation of the People Bill. I hope the Minister can tell us that that is going to be added to the Government’s plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come to that question at the end, if I may.
The Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment and announced immediate plans to accept two recommendations responding to urgent risks. A week ago, in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Government would publish their response very soon, and I am delighted to say I was right. They have now published their full response and, as noble Lords know, the Government have accepted all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. I will come to the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made in a moment. I welcome the support—I would not say it is qualified support—from all the Benches opposite for Rycroft and our acceptance of the recommendations.
In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. I should note, because this is an important point that the noble Baroness made, that the Minister will be writing to political parties to set out these measures in much more detail, and that letter will be publicly available on GOV.UK. I will come to the question of discussions and engagement in a moment.
We will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. It is materially more complex to trace the true source of political donations made by voters living overseas, and this creates a clear avenue for the channelling of illicit funds. There is a simple principle at stake here, which I think we all share: we want the people who make donations to political parties to have a genuine stake in the life of the UK. That is the principle we are seeking to achieve. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics. The noble Baroness referred to those risks, and the Government are very alive to them.
Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, and therefore we are introducing a minimum residency period. The risk is very clear. An overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted, to prevent circumvention of the regime. Once the measures come into force, that minimum residency period will apply retrospectively, from the date of our original announcement on 25 March. I note the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made about retrospection, but the Government’s view is that there are clear risks and we should address them in the way that we have.
We will apply the same cap and the minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after the date of the Statement and was not previously an overseas elector, to ensure these individuals cannot circumvent the rules before commencement. That is the risk. A modified cap will apply retrospectively and an annual cap of £100,000 per recipient will apply to donations they make between today and the date of the commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions they enter into from today. On commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors.
As we previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency. The arrangements around crypto are simply too opaque.
Building on previous announcements, and in response to the review, we will go further to strengthen our political finance safeguards. We will amend the corporate donation test, so that it is based on post-tax profits rather than revenue, measured over five years to prevent double counting. We will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified threshold. We will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the declaration, including an appropriate threshold. We are introducing a raft of transparency measures.
We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Candidates will have to declare that donations to fund campaigning—as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said—made prior to formally becoming a candidate are from permissible sources. Donations in that period above £2,230 will need to be cleared. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me about aggregation. We have no plans to legislate on aggregation at the moment.
We recognise how vital it is for the health of our democracy that we have a regulator that is fearlessly independent and, to the noble Baroness’s point, properly resourced to do the job that we are asking it to do. That is why, to ensure its independence, we are also repealing the Government’s powers to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. Beyond political finance, we will take steps in the Representation of the People Bill and more broadly to implement these important reforms.
If I do not manage to cover everything in the time I have left, I will come back to noble Lords. On consultation, I do not have anything to add. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, gave a very adequate response on the history, so I shall not go over that again. I do, however, accept the noble Baroness’s point that we are trustees, not proprietors, of the political finance system. I take that very seriously. I take very seriously the risks of tit for tat—I said this in the debate last week—and the risk that future Governments might get into a prisoner’s dilemma.
I do not, however, accept that these reforms are partisan, hyper-partisan or otherwise. I agree with the noble Baroness that that is not a scenario we want to see. The Parliamentary Parties Panel of the Electoral Commission has continued discussions between parties. I assure the noble Baroness that I will, as this legislation proceeds—I will be taking it through your Lordships’ House—engage in a lot of detail with anyone who is keen enough to talk to me. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has already had the pleasure of my company on these matters; I bow to his superior knowledge. I can see him waiting to rise to his feet. On the resources of the Electoral Commission, I take the point that the noble Baroness made.
On a point from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, I take very seriously the question of online adverts and, indeed, misinformation online generally. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nodding. I do not think any of us feel we have cracked it, to be blunt, and this is an area that we will have to continue to think about in relation to political representation, online advertising and so on. We will all be here on this subject for some years to come.
On foreign ownership of the media, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pack, will forgive me if I do not get drawn into that, but I take the point he made. I have already discussed our plans on aggregation.
On consolidation, I think I did answer this last week, but I am very happy to repeat my answer, which is that the Government want to fulfil the commitments they made in their manifesto. I was going to say “as a first step”, but I had better not say that because it might get me into a whole lot of trouble. That is our priority, and noble Lords can understand why. I understand the arguments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made the same arguments to me yesterday about consolidation.
On the 1695 Act, I will have to come back to the noble Lord. I commend the Statement, despite that absence in my knowledge, to your Lordships.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know that the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Minister—that means questions, not speeches or statements.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, referred to me. In opening, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his seat, since I notified him that I intended to quote him. On 15 July 2022, he said:
“I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister”—
how perceptive—
“they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law, which desperately needs some revamping”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1709.]
I now move on to the question of implementing changes in this particular field. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has already made comments about this. I know that the Minister is an old Alleynian—a product of Dulwich College. There is another product of Dulwich College who may have a certain influence on the changes that are necessary in this field. It is because of the events that we are witnessing and the investigations that are being undertaken by the Ethics and Integrity Commission that I ask the Government: please, can we not force through amendments to the Bill now, when we may be in the position in the imminent future of having yet more changes necessary to the legislation?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am indeed a product of Dulwich College, which only goes to show that it is not the school’s fault. I am sorry to say that I am older than Nigel Farage, and I am tempted to make jokes about bins and recycling—but I will not, because the Chief Whip will tell me off. On the substantive point, we understand that there is a lot going on. These are not matters for me; they are matters for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. We hear what the noble Lord says about the need not to keep double-dipping on this, so we will watch the situation carefully, but I should not comment on individual cases, as I know he understands.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Rycroft report. The Statement says:
“We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment”.
Recommendation 16 specifically talks about think tanks. The other night, in a committee room upstairs, I listened to a number of experts on foreign interference talking about foreign Governments funnelling money through think tanks in Britain to influence our political debates, including not only the Russian Government but the last Hungarian Government. I therefore urge the Government to consider including those forms of indirect political influence to shape the political debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, may add that PR firms are also engaged in this—as part of what we need to control, and to insist on transparency, at the very least, in where the money is coming from. I suggest that we should have a Defending Democracy Taskforce that reports to Parliament about what it is defending and what the threats are, so as to inform and alert us all to where we are.
I was the leader on our Benches for the 2022 Bill. I have been trying to recall the consultations that the then Conservative Government had with other parties. I must have forgotten that they took place. I was unaware that there was any form of constitutional convention. I will welcome the paper from the Conservative Benches about the constitutional convention: when it was shaped and how the Conservative Government previously used it in consultation with other papers. Perhaps, at that point, we may be able to discuss this new constitutional convention further.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not have anything to add on the noble Lord’s final point, other than that it sounds a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question to me.
On the question about think tanks and so on, I have already said how the principle behind the Bill is that we are seeking to prevent foreign interference in our democracy. As we go through the process with the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. At the moment we are focused on political parties, as I have said, but we recognise the wider landscape he draws, and we will cleave to the principle I have set out.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to give the Electoral Commission more investigatory powers, including the power to require information from third parties, as the Rycroft review recommended. The devil will be in the detail on that. Other regulators have extensive powers to require information from third parties, to search premises, to require third parties to attend for interviews, and so on, which are enforceable by criminal penalties. What powers are envisaged to be given to the Electoral Commission to require information from third parties and how will they be enforced?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point in relation to information sharing. To address the asymmetry identified in the Rycroft review of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill, we will amend the Bill to establish a broad reciprocal statutory gateway for information sharing. Importantly, we will also extend the commission’s power to require disclosure of information outside of a formal investigation, enabling a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement.
On criminal liabilities, one of the things that we want to achieve in the Bill is for these matters to be dealt with, as far as possible, by the Electoral Commission, as there are other pressures in relation to police time, and so on. We are decriminalising some minor offences in the Bill, as I think the noble Lord knows, but we do not want to reduce the liability in relation to serious matters.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I have just returned from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, where I spent the last five days on behalf of the House. One of the issues that came up was that what is happening here is not unique to us. A number of countries across Europe—not least Armenia, Hungary recently, and Moldova—are suffering the same issue of money coming in, possibly from Moscow and elsewhere. A considerable amount of time and effort is being spent by people on thinking of ways to tighten up the rules and make things more effective.
Enforcement has been touched upon. I may have mentioned this last week when it came up, but things have changed since then. Suppose that Count Binface was the recipient of several hundred thousand pounds from some foreign donation and was to win that by-election in Clacton. Many might like to see him win, but that is another matter for another time and another place. What would be the ability to enforce against him? He would be the successful Member of Parliament. Does the Representation of the People Bill, as drafted, have the teeth to remove that Member of Parliament? The Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not properly cover this. Can the Minister give some advice or think carefully about how we are going to deal with this problem? Maybe he could write to me or meet me for a discussion.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I already have a date to meet the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, so we can certainly pick this up then. These potential breaches and allegations are matters for the Electoral Commission. It is our job to empower it to deal with them. I am sure that we will debate the issues he raises at some length in Committee when the Bill comes before the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is too nice to have gone through everything that the Tories did without involving us, but one of the things they did was to bring in the requirement for ID for people casting a vote. However, those people living abroad, although they extended the vote to them, do not have to produce their ID; they vote by post. I am sorry to bring this to my noble friend again but, more importantly, although I approve what Rycroft did in bringing in a cap, it is £100,000 per year per person. A couple living abroad who may not have lived here for 40 years can do £1 million between them over a Parliament. My noble friend cannot say that he agrees with me, but can he at least say that he is sympathetic, hears what I say and that it will be taken into account in future discussions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Hayter will have to read my body language, I am afraid. I will not be drawn. Her arithmetic is correct. If those patterns emerge, I go back to the principle that we want to stop foreign interference in our politics. If we see these rules being manipulated, as she suggests might be the case, we will respond to that. On voter ID, as she knows, the Bill does contain some provisions to make it easier for people. We will come back to those in Committee, I am sure.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
On procedure, I suspect that on the Opposition Front Bench the lady doth protest too much, judging by what I hear about the precedents. It is rather a good thing that there is a vehicle, in the Representation of the People Bill, ready for the addition of the amendments that the Government are making, picking up from the Rycroft report. I thought that the report was very good and that the Government’s answers were generally good.
My concern is over penalties. There is a risk, given the very large amounts of money that are flying about and the penalties being exiguous, of them simply being seen as a cost of business. I am rather sorry that on the recommendation that sentencing should be reviewed, the response is:
“Significant changes to criminal thresholds and sentencing length require a longer process of analysis and consultation than is possible to deliver in the timeframes of the RoPB”.
I am not sure why that should be so. Is the Minister sure that it is not possible to tighten up penalties in this Bill?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am starting to feel the need to defend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but will not fall into that temptation. On enforcement, one point that I should perhaps have made and will make now is that we are increasing the fining powers of the Electoral Commission. I know that is not quite the point that the noble Lord is making but it is precisely for the point that he makes. The current cap on fines from the Electoral Commission is £20,000, which could be seen as the cost of business for people and businesses richer than I am. We are raising that to £500,000.
On the point about criminal sanctions, we are in active discussions with the Ministry of Justice. As the noble Lord rightly acknowledged, we want to do what we can and not go at the pace of the slowest recommendation. We will come back to that point because the recommendation from Philip Rycroft gives us a very clear direction of travel.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this very important review and that the Government are accepting all the recommendations. I am most concerned about the area pertaining to recommendation 13, on what is happening online in the social media space. The recommendation is that combating “hostile state online interference” requires
“clear lead accountability at ministerial and senior official level … with resources commensurate to the challenge”.
Since this review was undertaken, an important report came out in the last month from the Social Market Foundation. It found that around by-elections and elections online, we are seeing 26 times more misinformation and disinformation on social media. That review looked specifically at what was happening on Facebook. In that context, I urge the Government to press the National Crime Agency to undertake a full investigation into who is funding British content creators who are posting daily toxic content that is deliberately anti-democratic, divisive and highly damaging to our politics.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question and I pay tribute to her long-standing work in this area. It is important that I set this out carefully, so I hope she will forgive me if I read out the precise answer. The Online Safety Act framework requires in-scope services to tackle illegal content where it amounts to a criminal offence. In an election context, for example, this includes incitement to violence, undue influence, foreign interference, false communications and false statements about a candidate’s character. Those are important powers, but we recognise—as I have already said on the question on adverts that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised—that today’s technological and online environment shifts and develops rapidly. That is why we are working with colleagues across government—I am very actively engaged in this myself, including with Ministers in DSIT and the Home Office—to continue to take steps to address these challenges. Your Lordships do not need me to tell them that we need to keep a close eye on this space.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will take the Minister back to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Haywood, who asked about the Minister’s fellow Old Alleynian, the coming by-election and the legal processes, and said that maybe we should hold off on the legislation until we have seen that process play out. I think I understood the Minister to say that he understood the argument and to “watch this space”, or words to that effect. Is it really proper for us to pass legislation against, or at least inspired by, a specific individual? Is not the worst kind of law that which is designed to frustrate a political opponent? Should we not be very careful, in this House particularly, of that kind of talk and legislation when the party in question, Reform UK bizarrely, despite its share of the vote at the last election, lacks any representation in this Chamber?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I never say “watch this space”—it is not my style—but the serious point that the noble Lord makes is absolutely right. Of course we should not allow individual cases of that sort. This is a properly regulated space. We are strengthening that regulation. Many of these matters, particularly in relation to the other place, are for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the authorities in the other place. I would not seek to interfere with that in any way, but we will all read the papers, I am sure.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What are the Minister’s thoughts on the past intervention of President Obama in the British referendum, which rather backfired, and what would he think if leading Republican politicians today, for example, get energetically behind Rupert Lowe’s party?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not feel qualified to comment on the behaviour or attitudes of the leaders of the Republicans or other right-wing parties in the US.
The Space Economy (UK Engagement with Space Committee Report)
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
That this House takes note of the Report from the UK Engagement with Space Committee The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out (HL Paper 190, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, it is with great pride that I introduce this debate on the report The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out. The title was chosen to capture the urgency with which the committee believes government and others should act. I am sure this overarching message will be reinforced in the course of this debate. At the outset, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her willingness to engage with the report and the debate. I believe she is enthusiastic for what can be done. I look forward to hearing that enthusiasm turned into concrete actions in her response and in the future.
I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is not in his place but who was the instigator of this inquiry. I am very grateful to him for proposing and championing that your Lordships needed to consider our relationship to and work in space. The committee was fortunate to have such a brilliant team of clerks and advisers, who made this report come alive. It astonishes me how they were able to guide us through such a challenging subject, keeping us within the framework of a report based on evidence but never curbing our enthusiasm for the subject, and apparently becoming experts on the subjects within days of being given the task of supporting our work. Sabrina, Steph, Scott—you are truly fantastic. Sarah, thank you for your work in communications. Michelle, we could not have asked for a better external adviser. On behalf of the committee, thank you.
Most of all, I pay tribute to the noble Lords who formed themselves into the space committee with a fabulous combination of enthusiasm and curiosity. I have performed many functions in your Lordships’ House but never chaired a committee before, and my colleagues were a joy to work alongside. We even had a space baby during one of our public sessions: my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who brought his wealth of experience in science and will do so again today, was momentarily distracted by the news of his new baby granddaughter’s arrival. It added to the urgency we felt that this subject, with all its potential, could offer her a better future. Perhaps inspired by the new family member, my noble friend made the point that space would be an integral part of the lives of her generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, chaired in my occasional absence, for which I am extremely grateful, bringing his legal knowledge as well as enthusiasm, especially in tackling some of the environmental questions. On our visit to the Harwell space cluster in Oxfordshire, which has over a 100 space businesses, the European space agency and the UK space agency, before it was folded into the department—I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his role in that—a business leader said to us there that he had many visits where people barely asked a question and feared that we might not have much to say. We were impossible to stop—some of us more impossible than others—barely catching the train back and still with lots to say. My award for enthusiastic questioning goes to my noble friend Lord Shamash, who brought not only his legal prowess but his unstoppability and interest, which delighted the businesses we met. I am only sad that we were unable to hold this debate before the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, left the House. He had hoped to make his farewell speech on this report. On behalf of the committee, I send him all our good wishes.
In our lifetimes, space has moved from the almost science fiction launch of Sputnik and the early pioneers of Mercury and Gemini through to the developments of Saturn V and the heady days of the Apollo missions. Many, though not all of the committee, remembered the anticipation of Apollo 11’s grainy photographs from the surface of the moon and the crisis of Apollo 13—still my favourite film. We have witnessed the building of the International Space Station, the Soyuz missions, the work and the tragedies of the space shuttle, and seen a largely two-country race and collaboration transform to a time when 90 countries have space programmes and China has its own space station in orbit. Indeed, the world has not seriously worked together on how to regulate space since the 1967 outer space treaty.
Ten years ago, there were 2,000 satellites; by 2030, we will have a minimum of 60,000 and a possibility of 100,000. We have seen our relationship with space change our everyday lives in ways that barely seemed possible only a few years ago. Most of the time we are unaware of our reliance on what happens above us. Some 18% of our GDP is reliant on satellites, and were we to lose our PNT—positional, navigation and timing capabilities—for just one week it would cost our economy £7 billion.
We had the benefit, in putting together this report, of an extraordinary group of witnesses and teachers. We held 24 evidence sessions, received 106 written submissions and heard from 62 witnesses. We had masterclasses from astronauts Chris Hadfield and Tim Peake on their experiences past and present. Future astronaut John McFall gave us insights into his ambitions for his time in space. Professor Brian Cox aided us immensely, even interviewing me at the conclusion of our report to give greater publicity to our work. Of the businesses we met, I should single out ClearSpace, which braved the security needs of your Lordships’ House to bring in its robotic arm, which is designed to catch satellites in orbit to service, repair or remove them. Experts in law, regulation and climate issues all gave us the benefit of their knowledge. We heard from many of the over 60 UK universities engaged in space research, discovered that there were 84 observatories engaged in space work and recognised that this sector has grown much faster than the rest of the economy over a number of years. We spend 1% of the global space budget and get a 5% share of the market, in a global space economy anticipated to grow 60% by 2030 and predicted to be worth £1.8 trillion by 2035.
We took the decision to focus primarily on the economic benefits, the challenges of promoting space safety—especially as there are more than 40,000 tracked pieces of space debris in orbit and almost 1 million smaller pieces capable of damaging satellites due to the velocity of their travel—and the partnerships that allow us to scale up our engagement. We were mindful that 50% of expenditure on space comes from the Ministry of Defence, that there are many dual-purpose technologies and that, in the context of resilience, satellite services are critical infrastructure. I am very grateful for the advice of Major General Tedman, head of United Kingdom Space Command.
Had we had longer we would have delved into these areas more, but, with the defence review and the committee currently examining issues of resilience, we are confident that some of these vital issues will be or have been examined. We hope that the Government will put all these reports together in thinking about next steps. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, paid particular attention to our links with defence. I look forward to his contribution today, which I am sure will feature this.
We were most surprised—I believe colleagues will comment on this—by just how fast work in space has become part of our infrastructure and the landscape for much of our economy. Satellites enable more precision farming, as anyone watching “Clarkson’s Farm” will note. GPS allows autosteer systems to guide tractors with extreme precision, minimising overlaps, saving fuel and reducing crop damage. Weather satellites help farmers to plan, which is vital not just in the UK but especially in areas suffering from the extremes of climate change and disruption. Financial investors can also assess crop health, estimate yields and so on using satellite technology where information is scarce.
Shipping companies use navigation satellites to track on their phones the locations of not just vessels but their contents. Most of us use GPS to work out our travel routes, avoiding traffic jams and disruptions. Online banking uses satellites for internet connectivity and, in remote or rural areas, provides connections to log into a bank. In the medical field, we heard from witnesses such as BioOrbit about the potential to manufacture drugs that work more effectively with fewer side-effects and allowing patients to administer complex drugs safely at home. Others spoke about the advantages of growing skin and organs in microgravity. This Tuesday, a British start-up, Mass Balance, announced that it is sending a miniature autonomous orbital lab to space to help develop new dementia drugs by watching how the complex proteins that cause Alzheimer’s fold and clump in microgravity.
One of the most exciting areas we heard about was how the UK is an early mover in orbital servicing, assembly and manufacturing. Companies such as Astroscale and ClearSpace are developing technologies to clean up space debris and service satellites in orbit. Space Forge is developing fully returnable satellites designed to manufacture the next generation of higher-performance semiconductors, which will make such things as vehicle chargers and 5G networks significantly more efficient. With the cost of launch becoming significantly reduced, largely due to reusable rockets, the potential to do more in space increases.
This brings us on to the geographical advantage that we have in launch capabilities, as an island where rockets can avoid populated land and access polar orbits. SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland has announced a launch window for a possible rocket test flight in August or September, with German firm RFA expected to be the first to carry out tests this year. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, will have more to say on this subject, but the committee was mindful of the need to ensure a really good business case for the launch site. We are well aware that we must not miss opportunities and we heard evidence of the need to have our own capacity to launch, but we are keen to hear how the Government see the future for a commercially successful launch capability and whether a spaceport capability offered to international clients has the potential to be useful for this country commercially.
The Royal Society has said:
“Space technologies will become ever more integral and fundamental to … modern economies”.
That requires government departments to build the value and use of space into their forward thinking for all sectors. We have heard the same cri de coeur for decades about how to make government join up its thinking, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, will offer his insights into higher education and the need to support R&D and thinking across government. We have made proposals for a Space Minister dedicated solely to this work and an envoy to work alongside businesses and universities and feed into government.
It is crucial that we address the needs of start-ups to grow up. It is not confined to this area and often spoken of as a British malaise: great at invention, then bought up by others. We heard how companies are approached all the time to move to the USA, the Gulf or elsewhere. We are lucky that some are firmly committed to this country, but they can stay only if they can access the resources that they need, so I hope the Minister will tell us what more can be done.
Many businesses talked about the importance of moving from grants to contracts and what a difference that would make. Can the Government do this and at speed? Having certainty in contracts, plus the ability to leverage other investment more effectively as a consequence, was a big part of the ask that many felt would make a difference. As the noble Lord, Lord Booth-Smith, who is on the committee, pointed out, private sector investment needs to be improved. A strategy to promote investment and opportunities should be part of the Government’s efforts to boost economic growth in this area.
Businesses spoke too about the challenges of skill shortages—up to 95% in some cases. This is not just about scientific knowledge and innovation. For a successful business, all kinds of skills are needed. As we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who cannot be here today, this is about STEAM, not just STEM. Arts and humanities play their part too. Opportunities and education play a key part, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy, with her long experience in the world of work, reminded us. No doubt she will again today.
At a time when the Milburn report speaks so passionately and alarmingly about our young people—called NEETs for shorthand purposes—surely we can invest in job training in this area. Space sparks the imagination but requires practical skills to make the imagined real. A campaign to engage some of these 1 million young people should surely be considered. How exciting this could be for those who, one way or another, have had few opportunities or not been seized of the possibilities.
There is intense competition in this field. Those who succeed will be those who develop strong national strategies that align government and industry around national advantages and shared goals, and who understand the rapid changes needed to harness this new future. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, with her deep understanding of AI and her knowledge of the need to move on these major challenges at speed, will have much to offer our debate. We have the opportunity across the country, with our space clusters, space catapult, primes, small businesses, universities and institutions, to boost our economy significantly. Not everything that we should do we should do alone. Our role in the European Space Agency is key and our partnerships with NASA, Japan, Canada and Australia are all important. I look forward to hearing more about what is being proposed.
Here are real opportunities for economic growth in new industries, offering new products in regulation and legal services, testing and building satellites, engineering in space, new medicines, offering farmers greater crop yields, shipping and shopping, or simply getting safely from one place to another. Every government department should be involved in working out what we should do. This is as important for determining our future as the Industrial Revolution was in the 18th and 19th centuries. We stand on the cusp of something remarkable: space is the enabler for the way we will live. Whether we rise to the challenge, invest in this potential and take the best kind of risks is up to this Government in this moment. Now is the time to seize that moment: in other words, act now or lose out. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on an excellent report, which is a magisterial review of the issues in space policy that also brings out the opportunities for us. I declare an interest as chair of SaxaVord spaceport, which has already been referred to. Before that, as chair of the UK Space Agency, I gave evidence to the committee about the agency.
My history here is that, when I arrived as a Minister in 2010, space was one of my responsibilities and I inherited plans from the previous Labour Government—from the excellent noble Lord, Lord Drayson—to create a new UK space agency as an arm’s-length body. So the plans were from the previous Labour Government and I implemented them. In my final year as chair of the UK Space Agency, I loyally implemented the new Labour Government’s plans to get rid of it as an arm’s-length body. Those are the ups and downs of politics, of course, as many in this House are aware.
In the interim, a decision happened several years ago to split policy in the department from operations in the agency. That model was not working. It is absolutely right to bring together policy and operations. If that is inside DSIT, with its broader links to other departments, so be it, and I wish all success to the new Space Agency, once again bringing all those roles together. But I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that real, deep technological expertise within the Space Agency will be preserved, even within the Whitehall department.
A key theme of the report is the excellent opportunities we have, and I certainly regard launch as one of them. SaxaVord is the UK’s great opportunity to have a vertical launch capability, and it has already received support from the Government. One of the themes of this report is the many different ways government can support the space sector, and one of these is procurement. So if, for example, the Government financially back launch and launch companies in the UK, will they also encourage them to launch their rockets from SaxaVord? Similarly, if the MoD is planning the launch of satellites, will it be encouraged to consider SaxaVord as a launch option?
It is striking how at SaxaVord, the main military interest in using us comes from Germany. The Kensington treaty, linking Britain and Germany, means there is now significant interest from the German military in using SaxaVord to launch the large commitments to new satellite constellations that they have made. It would be great if that were matched with some interest from our MoD.
The German interest in SaxaVord has to be looked at against the backdrop of the EU Space Act, which is briefly referred to in the report and presents an increasingly tricky challenge for the UK’s space sector. It is pretty protectionist about EU companies and provision. But the irony when it comes to launch is that mainland EU is “spacelocked”: there is no viable space launch capability within the mainland of the EU. Europe’s two vertical launch options are at SaxaVord in Scotland, and at Andøya in Norway, which is in the European Economic Area. So, I hope the Minister can assure the House that she will do her best to ensure in conversations and negotiations with the EU that the EU Space Act is not a protectionist barrier to British space companies or launch from the UK.
The report rightly brings out the importance of promoting investment in space. That brings us to another important initiative: the rise of the public finance institutions—the so-called PuFins—the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank, which are a really important tool for promoting co-investment and bringing together private and public finance. Again, they are referred to in the excellent report. However, the word in the space sector is that the National Wealth Fund has decided that it will not invest in space, despite space being identified as one of the priorities in the industrial strategy. I hope the Minister can assure the House that the National Wealth Fund will consider investing in space, and that space companies with suitable propositions should be able to bring them to the NWF, as well as the British Business Bank.
Finally, having advocated the Government taking their stake in OneWeb, one of my most frustrating experiences has been observing the ways in which, sadly, that opportunity was not taken in the way it could have been. It is now part of Eutelsat. It is striking how, as Eutelsat decides to commission satellites, they are not being built in the UK, and as it decides where to launch them, that is not happening from the UK either. It is not too late to use OneWeb in the way we originally envisaged, as a strategic opportunity for us to advance our interests in space.
I congratulate the committee on its excellent report and look forward to the ministerial response.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege to be a member of the UK Engagement with Space Committee, served so well by its two clerks, Sabrina Asghar and Steph Coulter, and expertly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady of Ashton of Upholland. I realised that she was going to be a wonderful chair when she persuaded our first witness to join her and some members of the committee to drink champagne immediately after his appearance before our committee. Only later did it become clear that Professor Brian Cox’s appearance before our committee had coincided with his birthday.
Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Booth-Smith—and here, I may be disagreeing with the chair—all members of the committee could recall seeing the moon landing on TV in August 1969. But, despite having witnessed this extraordinary event for humankind, or perhaps because we had done so, we were still not fully aware of the importance of space to the UK economy, nor of the role it plays in the UK’s defence and national security. Those two words, “dual use”, featured regularly in the evidence presented by our witnesses.
It was not possible for us to ascertain how well co-ordination between DSIT and MoD worked to deliver cross-governmental space policy. It is my view that the DSIT Minister responsible for space at the time did not manage to convince the committee that he was fully aware of the detail of the Ministry of Defence’s space plans. Yet, we now know that the long-awaited defence investment plan has allocated £3.2 billion of direct investment in space for the next four years. So, my first question to the Minister is to ask how closely involved she was, as the DSIT Minister responsible for space, in helping to shape the allocation for space in the defence investment plan.
The space sector shares several of the positive characteristics of other deep tech sectors in the UK: a thriving academic base in our universities, a rapidly increasing number of start-ups, and a global economy within its domain growing at about 10% per annum. It delivers £7 billion GVA, with a labour productivity 2.3 times the UK average. Yet, the UK ranks only 16th in space investment as a proportion of GDP, behind the US and most major European countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Israel.
This low level of investment has been compounded by fragmentation and lack of focus. The Government have attempted to address this issue by first recognising space as a priority frontier sector in the advanced manufacturing sector plan of its 2025 industrial strategy. Secondly, in March this year, the Minister announced that the Government would prioritise funding in four subsectors: satellite communications; assured access to space; in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing—ISAM—and space domain awareness.
Such prioritisation is defensible provided that it remains possible for innovative university labs or start-ups to access funding for research and development outside the chosen subsectors. Here, space weather research provides a salutary tale. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, will remember, back in 2007, the newly formed Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC, decided to stop funding solar-terrestrial physics. Eventually, after parliamentary intervention and other steps, the Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, agreed a rescue package. Fast forward to 2026, and today the UK space weather community, built from that research on solar terrestrial physics, stands as a world leader in the operational forecasting that is crucial to the aviation industry, as solar flares can disrupt the radio communications used by aircraft on polar and remote routes. Yet the underpinning research was initially written off in 2007.
UKRI is at present engaged in a rather fraught dialogue with the physics community about the funding allocation for the STFC. Will DSIT carry out an impact assessment of the flat settlement—in effect, the cuts—proposed by UKRI in physics funding, to include a consideration of the possible impact on space research?
The Minister has recently answered questions in this House about AI sovereignty. The House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee published a report two days ago, Science Diplomacy: Sovereignty, Strategy, and the Global Race, in which it argues that tech sovereignty should encompass not only AI but space and quantum. So my final question is to ask whether the Minister agrees that a subset of space technologies, beyond assured access to space, should be designed as sovereign capabilities for the UK, and whether any work is going on within DSIT and the MoD to investigate how we might improve resilience in these space capabilities without, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“telegraphing our specific vulnerabilities to hostile actors”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and the whole committee for this extremely enthusiastic report. I suspect I will be taking a different perspective from every other speaker in this debate because I am going to start from down here on solid earth—a planet that we have comprehensively trashed and where we have exceeded seven of our nine planetary boundaries as identified by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. We talk about what is happening up in space, but what we do up there has huge impacts down here on earth. I start from the proposition that Britain’s place in space, both the activity happening from our own land and our global diplomatic and other efforts, needs to keep that in mind.
There are useful things that we can do from space. We can see how fast the Amazon is being destroyed and how fast the peat-lands of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are suffering. We can watch the depletion of water aquifers. All these things are important for us to understand what we are doing, and we need to use space to do that, but we also do not have to do everything we possibly could do in space. We have choices, just as we have choices about whether we use huge amounts of energy and water for data centres for so-called artificial intelligence.
We need to think before we act. Some noble Lords may recall the cautionary tale of the UK’s first military satellite, Skynet 1A. It was launched in 1969 but in the mid-1970s it was deliberately moved because it was no longer in use, and it is now in an inconvenient orbit. No one can find the records of where and how that was done or the whole circumstances. There is one man in his 80s who was probably the person responsible but can no longer remember the details. We need to think about the long-term impacts of what we do, not just throw things up in the short term and think we can forget about them.
As has already been alluded to, we are already crowding space. I note that in 2021 the G7 leaders’ summit in Cornwall was debating the sustainable use of space. Back then—it will have only got worse—85% of the 28,000 routinely tracked objects in earth orbit were debris that no longer served a purpose. Just as the oceans swirl with our junk, so does near space.
The report acknowledges in paragraph 315, on page 95, that one of the foremost challenges of the ongoing space economy is the threat of the so-called Kessler event, the case where one satellite explodes or has an impact and then sends debris into a wide field, which expands and expands. That brings up another important point that we need to consider: relying on things in space means relying on services and operations from that fragile environment. While I was doing the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I learned that all our traffic lights are timed from space. Just think of that in the context of a Kessler event. That is just one small example of the impact that it could have. Relying on space is something we have to think about when we think about our resilience and security.
There are also the environmental pollution impacts. Every year, 100 to 200 tonnes of hardware that is out of control re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere. The impact, should it land on a major city, would of course be significant, but wherever it lands it has impacts. In June 2025, after an Elon Musk SpaceX rocket exploded after launch, in Mexico there were die-offs of fish, dolphins and sea turtles. Just this week the Australian Space Agency has identified the likely source of mysterious large balls that washed up on a beach north of Townsville. They are thought to be space debris from pressure vessels on a space launch vehicle. Crews in protective suits were placing the spheres in hazmat barrels under police guard. This is a risk and an environmental concern.
There is an important point in the report that I need to stress. In paragraph 251, the report notes that the third pillar of the EU Space Act, announced in June 2025, is sustainability, and that
“operators must reduce the environmental impact of their activities in space”.
This is one element where I have to question what the committee is proposing. There is a suggestion in here that we as a non-EU member—for the moment, anyway—might find a competitive advantage by having lower environmental standards. I hope the Minister will reassure me that that is not the direction we would want to take. I note that the committee notes in paragraph 255 that if we did have lower standards than the EU, that would impose costs on operators in doing those things.
Let us think before we act. We have not done that with so much of what we have done on earth, on this planet. Let us think before we act in space.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to participate in this debate, as indeed it was a pleasure to be part of the committee under the superb chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. We are able to say that, for a sessional committee, we produced something of great substance in a very short space of time. It is only because of the support, the volumes of evidence that we received and the enthusiasm with which people supplied us with it, and because of our secretariat, that we were able to achieve that, and we did so with great enjoyment. I hope to replicate the enthusiasm and enjoyment I had from being part of the committee with other committees.
I draw attention to my interest, which bears upon my views on the report. Many years ago, in 1981, I was in the space branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, as it then was. We were writing space policy—we did both policy and operations in those days—and we chose not to take part in future space transport systems, such as Ariane, which is one of the major European Space Agency programmes. Instead, we chose to focus on satellite communications and earth observation, and subsequent decades demonstrated that the UK industrial and economic return from that investment was far in excess of what was subsequently able to be achieved by France, for example, through its investment in Ariane.
I say to my noble friend that French Guiana is part of France. The French would be very unhappy at the thought that there was not a launch capability in “Europe”, because it happens in French Guiana.
I am in sympathy with something mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Earth observation is not only a vital task but we have terrific advantages in this country that we have built up over decades, not only in the production of satellites and so on, which is important, but in the integration, analysis and use of data. To declare an interest, in 2017 to 2019 my wife’s company helped out with this. The company was contracted by the European Commission to do work on Copernicus data and how SMEs could use Copernicus data for many applications. I wonder, therefore, about the decision not to have earth observation as one of our continuing space objectives. In the committee’s report we raised the need for a business case and an economic rationale for the launch capability. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Mobarik on this subject. It must be proven, because otherwise we are investing, through ESA, potentially in ways that will not deliver the economic return that earth observation could have done.
I turn to defence matters. The defence investment plan has now been published and we can see the £3.2 billion figure. In my amateur way I can identify only about half of what that will be spent on. What I can see is that we are not going to continue with further investment in the SKYNET 6 programme. Understandably, we are engaging in a process of trying to have not only a system of systems, as it were, on satellite communications but, on narrowband communications for command and control, having space as a service—tapping into Viasat, Eutelsat OneWeb and Starlink, and the whole range of services provided by our own capabilities, but particularly by the capabilities of allies and commercial providers. That can give us more resilience. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the rationale is.
Where defence is concerned, we saw many potential dual-use capabilities. As an example of a partnership that I am particularly keen on, Japan has a launch capability and some fantastic technology; it is not producing these things ostensibly for defence purposes. Something such as the active debris removal programme mission—led by Astroscale, a Japanese-UK company—would be vital in dealing with the debris in space, but it also provides a capability to deal with, for example, satellites in space that are a threat to other satellites, and to be able to respond and deal with those.
I am slightly disappointed that although the Government response to the report said that we would expect to see the award of the active debris removal mission in March this year, it is now July and we have not yet seen it. I hope that we see it soon. At several points in the Government’s response, we have also seen the need for a one-government response to space, and that this would be reflected in the “spring space publication”, as it was described. It is no longer spring. I ask the Minister: do we have that one-government publication, which would give, I hope, much substance to what the future defence investment plan looks like, and how we can deliver on our industrial strategy and our space priorities, which is both a foundational and a frontier technology? I hope we see that even as soon as the Farnborough International Airshow. The clue to our report is in the title: “Act Now”. The Government’s response promised some things we have not seen, and I hope that we will see them very soon.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the report of the UK Engagement with Space Committee. Before turning to the substance of the report, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, my fellow committee members and our wonderful clerks, Sabrina and Scott.
This was one of those inquiries where the process itself was immensely rewarding. We embarked upon it not as experts in the field but as colleagues united by a desire to learn, a fascination with the opportunities and challenges of space, and a shared commitment to producing a report that could make a meaningful contribution to policy. What we lacked in technical expertise we certainly made up for in curiosity, enthusiasm and a genuine passion for the subject. I thank the many witnesses who gave evidence. Their generosity with their time, knowledge and experience made this a remarkable journey of discovery for us all and greatly enriched our understanding of the issues before us.
The report covers a wide range of important matters, from skills and regulation to investment, innovation and international co-operation. All deserve careful consideration. However, today I will focus on what I believe is one of the most strategically important issues facing the United Kingdom space sector: sovereign launch capability.
Space is no longer the preserve of scientists and explorers but an essential component of our economic prosperity, national security and daily lives. As geopolitical competition intensifies and our reliance on space-based infrastructure grows, assured access to space becomes ever more important. We have world-class expertise in satellite design, engineering and advanced manufacturing, but we remain dependent on others to place our assets into orbit. That dependence creates vulnerabilities and limits our ability to respond rapidly to both commercial opportunities and national security requirements.
If there is one conclusion I have drawn from this inquiry, it is that the United Kingdom must think and act with greater ambition. We cannot afford to be timid in our endeavours. We should not be content with a single launch location or place all our hopes in one facility. Resilience requires redundancy. In every other area of critical national infrastructure, we recognise the importance of back-up systems and alternative capabilities. Access to space should be no different. A nation serious about the ability to launch from its own soil should seek to develop more than one operational spaceport, ensuring flexibility, resilience and continuity in the face of technical, commercial or geopolitical disruption.
I recognise that funding is never straightforward. Public finances are under pressure and competing priorities are many, but transformative national projects are rarely achieved through conventional thinking. If we believe that sovereign access to space is of strategic importance, we should be prepared to explore innovative partnerships between government, industry and private investors. There are creative ways to unlock investment if there is clarity of purpose, confidence in the vision and a determination to succeed.
On joining the National Resilience Select Committee this year, I have become even more convinced that independent access to space should be viewed as an element of our national security architecture. Space is no longer a peripheral concern: it underpins communications, navigation, intelligence gathering, defence capability and the critical services that sustain modern economies. The ability to place assets into orbit from our own soil is not simply an industrial or commercial ambition; it is a matter of national readiness and strategic security.
An example of that ambition would be completing the development of the Sutherland spaceport. Some £7.5 million of public funds had already been invested in that project before being put on hold, and it requires a similar sum and a mere seven months to complete. Failing to finish the project would risk wasting the investment already made and denying the United Kingdom a strategically important capability. I refer Members to my declared interest, as outlined in the report.
Sutherland’s location on the mainland was considered one of its major advantages—both practical and safe. Sutherland should not be judged simply as a regional project, but as a part of the United Kingdom’s strategic infrastructure. We build such infrastructure because it provides capability, resilience and security. The economic benefits to the region and nation follow.
A self-reliant space nation should have complementary capabilities, not competing ones. Different launch sites can serve different missions, payloads and orbital requirements. Multiple operational spaceports can provide the redundancy and flexibility that any serious national infrastructure demands. Through my work on the National Resilience Select Committee, I have become convinced that spaceports, alongside our ports, airports and naval bases, should now be regarded as part of our critical national infrastructure. Will the Minister accept that resilience requires more than one operational spaceport to provide the necessary redundancy and flexibility?
Space capability cannot be created overnight. If we postpone decisions until demand is overwhelming or the next crisis arrives, we will already be too late. If we are serious about our national resilience, we must also be serious about assured access to space. This report sets out the opportunity and the urgency before us. I hope the Government will seize that opportunity and act with the pace that our national security and future prosperity demand.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to take part in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Ashton for the masterful way she introduced the report; she made every single point that I had jotted down to say myself.
I want to thank all my fellow members of the committee, because it was a very happy committee and we were very enthusiastic and conscientious about the work that we did. I reread our report in the run-up to this debate. It is a really good report, and I think it will last the test of time because space is an area for the future.
I also want to thank our excellent staff. We had an extremely interesting visit to the Harwell campus, and we had some very interesting witnesses giving evidence to us, including some that people have heard of, such as Brian Cox and Tim Peake. I also want to mention Professors Edhem, Wheeler, and Dougherty, because they also gave evidence, as did many others.
It is hard to know the first thing to say. I wish there were more Members in the Chamber because it would be very educative for them. The first thing to say about space is that it is anything but empty. Figure 4 in our report shows the exponential growth of satellites in the last few years. People may not realise just how many there are. It brings the problem of space debris, which I will come back to.
There are some 50,000 tracked items of debris and, some have suggested, up to 1 million other items that are small, but big enough to do real damage. The International Space Station had to adjust its orbit to avoid collision. In November last year, Chinese astronauts were stranded in space because the spacecraft that was going to take them back to earth had been hit by space debris. It was a pretty serious situation, but they did manage to get back safely.
My noble friend referred to how this satellite was brought in: with an arm that sort of grabbed it—I can grab my noble friend beside me as an example—and slowed it down, so that it could then be released and burn up in the atmosphere. At the moment, the same thing is going on in reverse. NASA is trying to save a space telescope by taking another object up there to push it into a higher orbit, so it does not fall to earth.
I will say something about the amount of stuff in space which falls to earth and gets burned up. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a perfectly good point about the pollution aspects. We live on a very polluted earth, and we must guard against the dangers of being, as was said by one of our witnesses in giving evidence, a pollution sandwich between debris in space and on earth. This brings great challenges.
Another thing to say about space, which has already been said by many people, is how vital it is to us on earth. There is a sentence about people born in 2025—I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning that they happen to include my own first granddaughter—whose lives are going to be dominated by what happens in space, and our report lists some of these predictions. In the full-colour version of the report, which I recommend, you will see the photographs that we deliberately chose to make it clear to people that space matters. At my granddaughter’s first birthday, I met a farmer who I had an interesting conversation with, and space is just as relevant in farming. It also matters in day-to-day life—where literally would we be without global positioning systems? At the moment, we do not need a satellite to tell us that the weather is hot and is going to stay hot, but all these things are vital. Pharmaceutical things have been mentioned, and we are going to find a lot more of this.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is important for the structure of government to do justice to the subject under discussion, and there needs to be more direction from the Government. We are about to have a new Prime Minister, and it would be nice to have a space Minister. Nevertheless, we need to address a lot of the other things, such as the skills challenges—heaven knows, there should be careers advisers in schools pointing out the unbelievable opportunities of the future for people working in the space area.
I want to draw attention not just to this report but to a report from the Science and Technology Committee that has not yet been debated in this House. It is, rather dramatically, called Bleeding to Death: the Science and Technology Growth Emergency, and it tackles the way in which we are unable in this country to scale up businesses, and that applies just as much to space. For all the companies that I hope will prosper in the UK space economy of the future—which will be a very big part of the economy, and the sooner His Majesty’s Treasury understands that, the better—access to scale-up capital is going to be terribly important.
My time has run out, so I end by repeating what has already been said: our subtitle, “Act Now or Lose Out”, is a plea to the Government to grasp the opportunity before us and help make the UK a real leader in the space economy of the future.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, by the time you get to your feet and nine people have already spoken, an awful lot of things that you would want to say have already been covered. I repeat again that it was a delight and fun to be on the committee, which was charmingly chaired, and I thank the clerks. Seeing the committee’s members all present together is a bit like getting the band back together. There is a case for reconstituting ourselves—I do not know whether that is remotely possible, but it is something I raise.
As has been said, the subtitle of the committee’s report is “Act Now or Lose Out”, and nothing could be more accurate. It is important that the Government take on board the extremely rapid growth that is happening on the world stage in relation to space development. We have world-leading experience and expertise, along with a commitment across our science sector and our academic sector. However, we must do everything we can to maximise and apply those skills to see that the sector grows.
It is said that the global space sector is currently valued at over $500 billion and is expected to grow significantly, at an average of about 7% to 8% a year. That is an enormous rate of growth. As a nation, we cannot miss out on this opportunity. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to economic growth. Space is an ideal sector to promote, and it provides huge scope for such growth.
However, I am very concerned, as I note from the recent Defence Investment Plan, published last week and touched upon by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, that although space is a critical national infrastructure sector, the figure set out in that defence plan is only £3.2 billion. True, there is a suggestion that this figure may be increased in coming years, but we must act now. If you think of what is happening in the global space financial environment, that is a comparatively small sum.
What steps can be taken for members of the special inquiry committee to meet with my noble friend the Minister, and the relevant Minister in the other place, as soon as possible to further discuss the options for the future and how best to progress this? As has been mentioned, it is a pity that the House is not as full as one would like. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to either reconstituting our committee, or to whether there is something that could be done regarding a meeting across the ministerial complex on how we could take things further.
The US and Elon Musk, via his SpaceX and Starlink, have 7,000 active satellites, while China has 1,200. The UK has 630 to 670 satellites, and these are mainly small and suborbital. The Ministry of Defence has but six. The rest are commercially owned to facilitate our broadband links and our positioning, navigation and timing system, or PNT.
I would like to see the UK take advantage of the fact that we are not space-locked, which is a policy and practical term— mentioned earlier, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—to emphasise the strategic importance of having reliable sovereign access to space. As such, we should expand our two main launch sites at SaxaVord in Shetland for vertical launches, and in Cornwall for horizontal launches. We need to be able to launch our own orbital satellites. We have yet to do so. However, this very morning on the “Today” programme—maybe many of your Lordships heard it—the Shetland Space Centre announced a test launch this August. That is the future and must be encouraged. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and I were rather regretful that we could not find an excuse to persuade the committee to go up to SaxaVord and have a look round. That would have been interesting. I blame the chairman for that, but what can you do?
It is undoubtedly the case that space has an insatiable demand for funding. Money is tight, we all know that—very tight—but I respectfully suggest that a more collaborative approach be adopted by furthering our partnership with the European Space Agency and reaching out to private capital alongside public funds. It must be a sensible way forward to ensure that we as a nation do not miss out on this rapidly expanding area. It will provide huge numbers of jobs and wonderful opportunities for the nation as a whole. I hope that the Minister, having considered what I have said, will agree with me.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it was a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, and to serve alongside him and all the other very enthusiastic members of the space committee—and, indeed, to serve under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. I congratulate her not just on her excellent introduction to this debate but on leading us to produce our report. I join her and other noble Lords in thanking the committee staff for their hard work and all those who gave evidence to us, both oral and written, throughout our inquiry.
If nothing else, the committee has done the House a considerable service in highlighting both the opportunities presented by the UK’s space economy and the risks of failing to seize them. As has already been mentioned by several noble Lords, the title of our report, Act Now or Lose Out, captures this challenge perfectly.
I welcome the growing recognition across government that space is now a strategic capability. Although our committee did not major on defence in the context of the UK space sector—perhaps to some mild frustration expressed by my noble friend Lord Lansley—it is worth nothing that the strategic defence review makes it clear that satellites are critical national infrastructure. We have already heard from others that satellites underpin our communications, navigation, financial services, energy networks and national defence. In the 21st century, sovereign satellite capability is no less important to our resilience than secure energy infrastructure or telecommunications.
My concern is not that the Government lack ambition when it comes to space but that they still lack focus. Strategy is about making choices. We cannot lead in every part of the space economy, so we must decide where Britain should build sovereign capability, where we should work with trusted allies and where we can rely on the commercial market.
For me—I do not think I am alone, although my noble friend Lady Mobarik may differ with me—one capability stands above all others: sovereign capability in satellites. Recent and ongoing conflicts have demonstrated beyond doubt the importance of satellite communications, positioning, intelligence and earth observation. It is no surprise, therefore, that the strategic defence review speaks of sovereign capability. However, sovereignty is not achieved by simply being an aspiration; it requires sustained investment and clear priorities. The previous Government’s intervention in OneWeb demonstrated that they understood the strategic importance of sovereign satellite capability—I note my noble friend Lord Willetts’ comment about the current Government’s reluctance to take advantage of their golden share—but the challenge remains of ensuring we build globally competitive British space companies here in the UK. That brings me to a subject on which I have spoken before: scaling British technology companies—the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, highlighted this.
I hope I have brought several things to the work of the space committee, but I think if there was one thing of value that I did bring it was what I had learned from chairing the Communications and Digital Committee, especially as the chair was so gracious as to acknowledge our work on AI large language models and scaling tech businesses. As she said, Britain is exceptionally good at creating innovative businesses, but we are much less successful at helping them become globally significant companies headquartered here. We celebrate the start-up but too often lose the scale-up. But that is no longer simply an economic weakness; in sectors such as AI, quantum and space, it is becoming a strategic vulnerability. If we cannot build companies of global scale, we will struggle to build sovereign capability.
So I welcome the Government’s greater emphasis on scale-ups in both the industrial strategy and the defence industrial strategy. It is particularly encouraging that defence procurement is increasingly seen as a means of helping innovative British companies grow. But strategies do not build companies; customers do. The Government have one of the most powerful tools available: their procurement power. By becoming an intelligent first customer for British space companies, they can create the demand and confidence that enable promising firms to scale, attract investment and remain British as they grow. If we want genuine sovereign capability in space, we must move beyond funding excellent research to building globally competitive businesses. That means patient capital, smarter procurement and, above all, clear national priorities.
So which space capabilities do the Government believe must be sovereign, which should be delivered through trusted allies, and which can safely be left to the commercial market? Until those choices are made explicit, we have an ambition for sovereignty but not yet a sufficiently prioritised strategy for delivering it. Britain begins this race with world-class science, outstanding engineers and innovative entrepreneurs. Our challenge is no longer to prove that we can innovate; it is to ensure that British innovation becomes British capability and that British capability becomes British industrial strength.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as a former member of the committee—all of us, I suppose, could be described as space cadets—I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, for her superb chairing of the committee and for her inspiring introduction today. I join her and other members of the committee in thanking all the staff and advisers to the committee, and all our evidence givers, including the celebrities that the noble Baroness mentioned. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed so enthusiastically to this extremely illuminating debate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, said, the title of the report absolutely captures the challenge. It serves as both a stark warning and a brilliant road map for our future. As we have heard today, the UK space sector is an invaluable national asset. It generates nearly £19 billion a year in income, directly employs over 52,000 people in highly skilled jobs and underpins approximately 18% of our entire GDP—some £364 billion. We possess immense comparative strengths that we must champion, from Glasgow, which builds more small satellites than anywhere else outside California, to our pioneering in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing—ISAM—sector. We also boast unique downstream advantages, with the City of London primed to be the pre-eminent global centre for space finance, law and insurance.
As we have heard today, the UK space sector is an invaluable national asset, but we must not be complacent: the hard data shows that the UK’s global market share in space has fallen from 5.1% in 2020 to just 4.2% in 2023. We are sliding backwards because our nearest competitor nations are aggressively ramping up their public investments while the UK relies on short-term, fragmented funding cycles. As we consider these economic opportunities, we must be clear-eyed about the intense international competition that we face, particularly the overwhelming dominance of the United States. The recent record-breaking IPO of SpaceX vividly illustrates the sheer scale of American financial and industrial might in this domain.
The noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Shamash, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ashton and Lady Mobarik, have talked about the importance of sovereign UK launch capability. The committee’s report was right to warn that the UK and the rest of the world have become dangerously overreliant on a single commercial entity for orbital launch and satellite communications. This is a profound strategic vulnerability. We cannot simply outsource the resilience of our critical national infrastructure to a single overseas monopoly, nor to the unpredictable political and commercial whims of one billionaire. This stark reality underscores exactly why the Government must step up as an anchor customer to help our own domestic firms scale up and why we must urgently pool our sovereign capabilities with our European partners.
To truly grasp the scale of this domestic opportunity, we need only to look at our world-leading capabilities in earth observation, which were focused on in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Satellite data is rapidly becoming the new gold of the global economy. Earth observation is vital for monitoring climate change, tracking deforestation, predicting natural disasters and enabling precision agriculture. Yet, as the committee heard, adoption of these services outside the space sector remains far too slow because many organisations still view space as complex or irrelevant.
This is exactly where the Government must step in. By acting as a smart procurer, buying earth observation data to improve our own public services, whether for national flood mapping, monitoring coastal erosion or infrastructure planning, the Government can act as an anchor customer. This would immediately de-risk private investment, help our innovative SMEs to scale up and ensure that the UK captures its rightful share of this market. I very much appreciated what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said on the whole scale-up aspect.
But space is no longer just an economic frontier. It is, as many noble Lords said, a critical national infrastructure. It is increasingly congested, contested and competitive. Our national security and resilience rely heavily on the space domain, from tracking climate change to the vital encrypted communications provided by our Skynet military satellites. To secure these economic and security benefits, the committee’s message is unequivocal: the UK Government must provide a coherent, funded strategic direction. Industry is crying out for the Government to pivot from being a small-scale grant funder to acting as a reliable, smart anchor customer. Procurement contracts, rather than just R&D grants, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, are essential to de-risk projects, crowd in private capital and help our brilliant SMEs to scale up into globally competitive businesses.
Yet the Government’s official response to this excellent report is frankly lacking in the urgency required. Instead of publishing the detailed national space capability development plan that the sector needed and which the committee demanded by the end of 2025, the Government deferred the hard details to a spring space publication, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Now it seems that they have promised a plan for space for later this year. Can the Minister confirm exactly what is intended? This deferral of decisions is simply not good enough. As Professor Sylvester Kaczmarek powerfully highlighted in his recent briefing to Peers, deep tech firms cannot scale their businesses on what are described as future documents. The Government’s response offers process when industry desperately needs delivery.
I therefore press the Minister on three specific matters. First, given the Government’s insistence on absorbing the UK Space Agency into DSIT, will they urgently publish a clear accountability map so that industry knows exactly who owns strategy, procurement and regulation across Whitehall? Secondly, when will the Government publish a concrete procurement route that includes specific targets for SME participation? Thirdly, how do the Government plan to create an open assurance pathway for the complex AI-driven autonomous missions of the future? If we want to lead the world in active debris removal, so positively mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and secure space operations, we must have the regulatory frameworks to prove that these AI systems are trustworthy and secure.
I am afraid that the Government’s response to this committee is characterised by a failure to grasp the nettle. They have not only absorbed the UK Space Agency into a Whitehall department but explicitly rejected the committee’s sensible recommendation to appoint a dedicated Minister for Space to drive cross-government co-ordination.
We on these Benches align very closely with the committee’s recommendations. On European co-operation, the committee rightly called for urgent decisions on our participation in flagship EU programmes such as Galileo and IRIS2 to provide industry with certainty. The Government have stated that they cannot make decisions yet. We are clear that we must pool our sovereign satellite navigation capacity by fully rejoining the Galileo system and confirming our participation in IRIS2. We cannot rely solely on foreign-owned systems for our critical position, navigation and timing needs.
On governance and strategic focus, the committee explicitly warned against the fragmentation of space policy across Whitehall and expressed deep concern over the absorption of the UK Space Agency into DSIT. We on these Benches believe that this merger is a strategic error. Why are the Government dismantling the autonomy of our national space agency at the very moment that it is proving its commercial worth? An independent UKSA is crucial to present a unified interface with the European Space Agency, maintain specialised technical focus, and champion UK interests internationally. We continue to call on the Government to reverse that decision.
We must tackle the skills gap mentioned by a number of noble Lords with genuine ambition, which includes implementing broader reforms to the apprenticeship levy to allow space firms the flexibility they need for responsive training and microcredentials. We cannot maintain our leadership on deferred decisions and structural dilution, so I urge the Minister to take the bold decisions identified by the committee, deliver a clear and actionable space strategy and, in the words of the report, act now before we lose out.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and every member of the committee for this powerful and timely report, although I must say that my principal reaction is one of envy—I rather wish I had been on the committee. The report makes the genuinely compelling case that space policy is central both to our national security and to our future prosperity. The space economy does not get the attention it deserves, either in this House, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has pointed out, or with the public more generally, so I am delighted that, through this report and in this excellent debate, we have some small chance to address that.
The report reminds us that much of modern life depends on space technologies. Many of us enjoy these technologies without even realising this. From satellite navigation, banking systems and weather forecasting to logistics, these capabilities underpin a significant portion of our economy. I was really struck by the estimate that some 18% of UK GDP relies on satellite services alone. The committee is right to argue that Britain possesses many strengths and great potential in this area. We boast world-class universities, innovative companies, growing launch capability, and internationally respected scientific expertise.
But the question before us today is whether we have the strategic focus needed to realise and unleash our collective vast potential. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s recognition that space forms part of our critical national infrastructure and represents an important opportunity for economic growth. We also acknowledge the steps that have been taken to support skills development and improve strategic co-ordination across government. However, as the committee concluded, ambition alone is not enough. Businesses require certainty, investors require confidence and researchers require long-term support. Without clear priorities and more consistent delivery, there is a risk, as many noble Lords have pointed out, that innovative British companies may simply choose to scale elsewhere.
Many of the committee’s recommendations deserve serious consideration. The call for clearer strategic direction, better cross-government co-ordination, a funding model that helps firms scale beyond the research stage, greater support for skills and an agile regulatory framework all speak to the practical steps needed if we are to compete in an increasingly crowded global marketplace. Let us make no mistake—it really is increasingly crowded, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
There is also a critical national security dimension. As the committee and noble Lords have recognised, civil and defence capabilities are becoming ever more closely intertwined, and I was unsurprised to note the increasing use of “dual-use” terminology throughout the report and in our debate today. Investing in technologies with commercial and strategic applications both strengthens our resilience and creates opportunities for economic growth. The previous Government recognised this through the publication of the National Space Strategy in 2021, providing for the first time a comprehensive framework bringing together civil, commercial, defence and security objectives. That is an important foundation, but it has been some time since its publication and this Government have now been in power for two years. The challenge now is ensuring that that strategy continues to be translated into delivery.
With those thoughts in mind, I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the following questions. First, combined with some of the sums in the defence investment plan that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, brought up, how much government spending will be dedicated to R&D and manufacturing in the space economy? Secondly, what further steps are being taken to help innovative UK space companies access the capital they need to grow and remain headquartered in this country? Thirdly—I recognise this is a huge question that stretches far beyond space, but it is critical here—how can we improve government procurement to support our space industry participants of all sizes? I was particularly concerned by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Willetts that the National Wealth Fund is giving out that it does not want to invest in space. I urge the Minister to get to the bottom of that as soon as possible, because clearly that would be a very serious error. Fourthly, how do the Government intend to ensure that the UK remains internationally competitive in the space sector, particularly as we have heard other nations increase investment and develop their own capabilities?
Finally, while the Government have, as we have heard, rejected the committee’s recommendation for a dedicated Space Minister, how will they ensure that effective cross-government leadership and accountability are maintained across departments? Will we see a change of mind on that as the new Prime Minister steps in? Like other noble Lords, I echo the sentiment that the title Act Now or Lose Out is entirely appropriate. We have the talent in this country, the science, the potential and the industrial capability to succeed. The opportunity is there. The task now is to ensure that government policy matches that ambition. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government. I thank my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland for securing this debate and for her committee’s important report on this matter. I also thank the chair for her expert leadership on the very thorough and seemingly enjoyable work that the committee undertook. It is a particular pleasure to have heard the appreciation across your Lordships’ House for the importance of the space sector today and the enormous potential it holds for the future.
As we have heard, the space dimension of our economy is coming to the fore. The UK has a strong space sector, with over twice the UK’s average productivity and global satellite services underpinning nearly 18% of the UK’s GDP. Beyond our financial services and well-known uses in telecommunications, space technology is helping farmers increase crop yields and enabling faster, more effective responses to natural disasters such as floods. As we have heard, it is a sector that contributes over £18 billion to the UK economy and employs over 55,000 highly qualified people. Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of meeting many of the industrial and scientific partners who make up this sector.
The sector relies on a strong partnership with government. Every pound invested by the Government through the European Space Agency sees a £7.49 return into the UK economy. In 2024-25 alone, UK Space Agency activity is estimated to have catalysed £2.2 billion in investment and revenue across the UK space sector. As was recognised by noble Lords today, space is also critical for national security and defence, providing the intelligence, communication and navigation required to keep the UK and its citizens safe. Reflecting many of the recommendations of the committee, we have recently taken further action to support our space sector. One of our strengths is the “one government” co-ordinated approach.
Noble Lords asked about the governance of space. Over the last year, Ministers from across government have met together four times to discuss critical issues for the space sector, our capabilities and support. Our teams work together, particularly across defence, national security, all parts of DSIT and transport, to align our approach. A clear example is the UK’s National Space Operations Centre, a joint civil-military command that brings together the UK Space Agency, UK Space Command and the Met Office Space Weather Operations Centre. Together, they help protect the critical space assets we rely on every day and provide the central hub for the UK’s space domain awareness. In response to my noble friend Lord Shamash, I am very happy to meet him and other members of the committee to talk further about how we work together on that front.
Noble Lords asked about the UK Space Agency’s move into the department. It is an important step towards closer collaboration, reducing duplication and gaining greater consistency across strategy, policy and delivery, while retaining the world-leading expertise and technical advantage to which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, referred.
Our upcoming space strategy will set out how space remains a government priority, in a funded way, and how the co-ordinated vision will ensure the very best outcome for the UK. I reassure noble Lords that we have taken action in the interim. I set out the strategic direction, alongside £500 million in funding, in my speech at Space-Comm Expo earlier this year. I am sure the committee will be looking forward to reading the strategy when it is published, which unfortunately will now not be before Summer Recess.
Noble Lords commented on prioritisation. As I set out earlier this year, we are moving further and faster in the areas that matter most to the UK’s future in space. One of those areas is satellite communications, which are critical for national security and resilience. In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, sovereign capability is an important consideration as we look at satellite communications. The Skynet programme run by the MoD provides that sovereign capability in satcoms, and we have increasing sovereign capability in space domain awareness.
In response to the questions posed by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Clement-Jones, and others, DSIT is leading cross-governmental work to develop our proactive relationship with Eutelsat, which will include working with defence colleagues on requirements following the publication of the defence investment plan. UK launch is not yet operational, but we are encouraging the company to take advantage of the UK’s capability as this becomes available. We are also encouraging the company to take more advantage of the UK’s world-leading satellite manufacturing and supply chain capabilities.
In response to the questions from my noble friend Lord Shamash and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, who I had the opportunity to discuss the opportunities of Sutherland with earlier this year, assured access to space is critical to our national security and economic growth. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, both those objectives, national security and economic growth, have caused this to be a priority for the Government. We are making significant progress towards that ambition. SaxaVord was Europe’s first licensed vertical launch site and expects to see its first launch this summer. We have established a world-leading regulatory regime and secured a comprehensive set of international agreements to enable launch operations from the UK.
The third area that we set out as a priority is in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing, and the fourth is space domain awareness. These are the capabilities that will drive growth, strengthen resilience and protect our ability to operate in space, so we are pivoting our support to those, where it will have the greatest impact.
Prioritisation is challenging and requires the Government to intervene assertively if we are to succeed. We know that space industries thrive with clear priorities, the right funding, a clear public procurement approach, the right regulation and strong international partnerships.
We are increasing the financing for space in recognition of many of the long-term projects, which, of course, include areas such as earth observation. The Government increased the UKSA budget in 2025-26 by 8%. That funding for space is inclusive of our subscription to Copernicus and is carried forward to over £3.3 billion over 2026-27 to 2029-30. Wider civil funding for space from other departments and organisations, from science funded by UKRI to critical meteorology services provided through the Met Office’s membership of EUMETSAT to planned procurements of satellite services from other departments, will further bolster this by over £900 million.
To the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and others about research, the STFC has spent considerable time engaging with the particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics community, its advisory bodies, scientific board and council to understand the implications of different options and gather feedback from across the sector. Given the significance of that decision, it was right to test options, understand the impacts and ensure that expert advice was fully reflected in the final outcome. That engagement has now concluded, and UKRI will set out the outcome of the prioritisation extremely shortly, if not now.
My noble friend Lady Ashton and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, highlighted skills, an incredibly important point. Some areas of targeted education and future workforce programming are supported by the department in UKSA, alongside other government programmes such as TechFirst and the advanced manufacturing skills package. As noble Lords have mentioned, the defence investment plan published on 30 June sets out future spending priorities, demonstrating clearly the importance of further developing capability in satcoms, ISR and SDA. The capability of defence funding to 2029-30 is £2.3 billion for satcoms and £880 million for space-based ISR and space control. Together with UK Space Agency funding, Ministry of Defence funding and planned activities across the rest of government and arm’s-length bodies, we anticipate that funding for space over the spending review will exceed £7.4 billion—a substantial increase over previous spending review periods.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, raised the importance of supporting companies to commercialise and grow. The point was very well made and is well taken. We are moving away from serial grants to more structured contracts for services. We are also supporting companies as they grow. Some of this relates to wider changes; for example, the announcements by the Chancellor under the Mansion House agreement, visas for talent and the support for the British Business Bank. Some of this is space-specific, such as the Unlocking Space for Investment programme. We are committed to supporting British companies to develop next-generation space technologies. At London Tech Week I announced new investment of more than £9 million to support early-stage UK companies through the UK innovation and science seed fund and a £10 million investment in the Welsh company SpaceForge, which is pioneering in-space manufacturing technology. That action is happening now.
Important points were raised by my noble friend Lady Ashton, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. Procurement is indeed extremely important, as is the balance around contracts and small-scale grant funding. Our upcoming space strategy will set out how we will refocus grant programmes and use contracts to support innovation. We are also making greater use of contracts for innovation, which enable public sector organisations to work with businesses to test innovative solutions and build the evidence that is needed for wider adoption. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this can bring real benefits. We have awarded contracts for innovation through our partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to improve water quality monitoring in Lough Neagh, support for an earth observation-enabled flood forecasting service at the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, and with the Home Office. This procurement for innovation is very important. We will continue to innovate in many different areas.
On regulation, all cutting-edge applications of technology need agile regulation and space is no exception. From the changes in the liability and indemnity regime for satellites to regulatory sandboxes for rendezvous and proximity operations, we have acted and will continue to do so; for example, with space multi-mission licensing and re-entry.
International partnerships and collaboration have always been a feature of advances in space. Given the global uncertainty, they are more important than ever. We are strengthening our international partnerships. In 2025, the UK committed £1.7 billion to ESA programmes over the next five years, which deliver against our objectives and leverage international collaboration to drive economic growth in the UK and bolster national security here. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we also collaborate, for example, with Japan and France, with bilateral funding, including on LiteBIRD, where UK universities are helping to explore the universe’s earliest moments.
To the points on Europe made by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Willetts, we are clear-eyed about the changing regulatory environment in Europe. The proposed EU space Act will have implications for UK companies and for our wider co-operation with European partners. We are engaging actively with the EU to shape that discussion where we can, but we will also act where necessary to ensure that UK industry remains competitive, our access to markets is protected and our regulatory framework continues to support innovation and growth. We have unique capabilities and assets in the UK with locations such as Shetland for launch. Europe will be stronger with the UK as a trusted partner.
It is also important to recognise that the US partnership is critical in both the civil and national security domains. Within the civil domain, our collaboration through missions such as NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, through which UK-led instrumentation is transforming our understanding of the universe, continues to open new scientific frontiers. On national security, we rely on deep transatlantic co-operation.
Important points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate, about space sustainability and debris. Space sustainability is evolving with the increased use of space. We are clear that no one country alone can do this. Our aim is to ensure that growth in space does not come at the expense of its long-term safe and sustainable use by shaping international norms and standards, investing more in space domain awareness and debris removal technologies, and working with partners to build global tech capability. Our licensing regime already expects operators to minimise debris creation through robust mitigation measures, and we will strengthen that further through clearer guidance and incentives for more sustainable missions.
As we know, space underpins the systems we rely on every day—from finance, energy and transport to emergency services—enabling the secure communications, navigation and timing to keep the country running. That is why strengthening our space capability is not simply an ambition for the future; it continues to be a strategic priority, and one we will build on further in our upcoming space strategy.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, at several points in the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report, they say that more detail will come forward in the “spring space publication”—not my language, the Government’s. The Minister has not said when we might expect to see that important spring space publication.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I set out earlier this year, in a speech to the Space-Comm Expo, a number of elements that are important for taking forward the measures envisaged in the space strategy, which include the £500 million of funding. We have taken action in many other areas set out in that report, since it was published and since our response to it. The noble Lord is right: we wish to bring it all together, and we are working to do so. Unfortunately, we will not be able to publish it before the Summer Recess. We hope to do so as soon as possible after that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate and my noble friend the Minister for her response. It is clear from everything that has been said that we have real opportunities in economic growth, world leadership and resolving problems, both in space and on earth. It is also clear that we need to get on with it.
Defence Readiness Bill
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards drafting the Defence Readiness Bill recommended by the Strategic Defence Review; and whether they intend for the scope of the Bill to include national resilience more broadly to encompass preparations for other risks contained in the National Risk Register.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. The starting point for today’s debate is that we live in a turbulent, uncertain, volatile world. The need for the nation to be better prepared and resilient is ever more pressing. We are closer to widespread war in Europe than we have been for over 60 years. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the routine targeting of civilian infrastructure with cheap drones and cyber attacks.
But this country is already subject to hybrid and grey-zone aggression: the Salisbury poisonings, using nerve agents; arson attacks on industrial sites, Jewish premises and even properties associated with the Prime Minister; cyber attacks such as those on Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and JLR; and submarines taking an unhealthy interest in the undersea cables and pipelines on which we rely.
The SDR recommended a defence readiness Bill with a framework of powers to improve the preparedness of key industries and to ensure sufficient supplies to support critical national infrastructure and the defence forces. An essential part of our commitment to Article 3 is the need to ensure continuity of government and vital services, requiring resilience against all types of shock, including natural disasters and cyber attacks, as well as military threats.
A defence readiness Bill, although originally promised for early this year, was not in the King’s Speech, but my noble friend the Minister has assured us that work on it is progressing. Inevitably, legislation that codifies how to prioritise the supplies and support needed in the event of a national defence emergency is complex. The Bill must include national resilience more broadly and address what, as a nation, should be our core preparations to equip us for the acute risks contained in the published national risk register, and for the longer-term, slow-burn threats in the Government’s chronic risk analysis.
So what is needed is a national resilience and defence readiness Bill, and the unfortunate delay permits that wider focus. The country’s resources may have to be mobilised not just in the event of hostilities against the nation but of other civil emergencies not necessarily arising from nation state action. Mechanisms are needed to respond to another pandemic, to extreme weather events precipitated by climate change, and so on.
We know that the Swedes, like those in most other European countries, have a booklet that goes to every household, “If Crisis or War Comes”. What do we have in the UK? We have the GOV.UK Prepare website, a separate story to which I might return. The Swedes also have a booklet for companies. It recognises the decisive role of businesses in ensuring that society continues to function. Its message is:
“When your company is prepared to operate under the threat of war, it is also better equipped to manage pandemics, natural disasters, and other peacetime crises”.
That message should apply here: it is not just about geopolitics and the threats from Russia or wherever; it is about being ready for everything else as well.
We have just seen the highest temperatures ever recorded in May, and again in June. This had consequences: the largest number of category 1 call-outs ever for the London Ambulance Service, train disruptions and IT failures. Last year’s hot temperatures saw wildfires, with the busiest night for the London Fire Brigade since the Blitz. Then there were the unprecedented 12 named storms in the 2023-24 storm season, to say nothing of West Nile virus being found in mosquitoes in Britain.
What should such a national resilience and defence readiness Bill encompass? It should set the framework to enable us to make the best use of the nation’s resources in the event of hostile action—importantly, not just above but below the threshold of war. It should systemise how to maintain military and civilian reserves—I see the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, in his seat. But just as importantly, that framework should be readily activated in the event of other emergencies. Like the Climate Change Act, which has some parallel provisions, it needs to place a duty on government departments, public bodies, local authorities and large businesses and organisations to build their resilience and bolster their preparedness to respond to all sorts of threats and emergencies.
Such a Bill should place reporting obligations on the Government and other agencies to report back regularly on what they are doing in respect of their resilience and preparedness. It should establish an independent, arm’s-length body, a bit like the Climate Change Committee, to monitor the adequacy of the progress made. It would, in effect, be marking the Government’s homework—which I appreciate my noble friend the Minister may not like but it is an important component. It should mark that homework to see what is being done to build the nation’s resilience and the progress being made on defence readiness and national preparedness. It would need annual reports to Parliament, and this House and the other place would need to set up committees to scrutinise progress.
As the world becomes more transactional—or, dare I say it, deals-based—with increasing competition for strategic raw materials, we will need to mandate stockpiles and take action to protect our sovereign capacity in key areas. We have, after all, the most open economy among the G20. Our food supplies and our pharmaceuticals, plus key industrial materials, are imported and vulnerable to blockades and embargoes. We need to be ready for those imports to be disrupted or even shut off. In the event of conflict, we will need to be able to divert the nation’s resources to the support of our military and homeland defence.
Legislation is needed to create the mechanisms to deliver the collective national endeavour needed to defend our country and make it resilient against all the other shocks that we may face. Every part of government, every part of society and every business, large and small—indeed, every one of us—have to see resilience and defence preparedness as part of their responsibilities. It must be designed in. It must be part of the national fabric. We might not have long. That is why we need the national resilience and defence readiness Bill as soon as possible.
In the spirit of the outgoing Mayor of Greater Manchester’s article in today’s Times, we must deliver that
“concerted action to enhance our resilience, starting at the local level”.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, and I do so with genuine enthusiasm. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has chaired the National Preparedness Commission with great vigour, and it has produced a great deal of extraordinarily detailed and high-quality work. Much of it, it seems to me, is oven-ready for government to take on. We have a good start there, but, as the noble Lord’s own speech has pointed out, there is still an awful lot of work to do, and I have one or two questions for the Government as well.
On Tuesday, there will be the Second Reading of the cyber security and resilience Bill, which is an important and necessary part of wider resilience. One might say that we have waited quite a long time for that. It does not, however, answer the question of what we mean when we talk about the whole of government, or for that matter, more ambitiously, the whole of society, which is phraseology about resilience that has taken hold in the last couple of years. There is a great question mark around what it really means.
If we are going to make it mean something, it seems to me that the whole of society implies a general strengthening of the sinews of society, a lot of it physical as well as digital, and much wider participation, beyond government, with organisations and individuals involved in the development of the security itself and its maintenance. This is not virgin territory. There are models, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has mentioned, notably in Scandinavian countries, where, among several of them, there is a form of national service of various kinds and household preparation for emergencies, including emergencies of a kind that do not necessarily involve conflict. There is extensive shelter provision in some countries. The most obvious example of that is to be found in Finland, where life for a wide segment of society can, in extremis, be maintained underground. The roots of such extensive provision lie in that country’s geography and history.
I am not sure that this country would go for that. Our historical experience has been different, where our planning has largely focused on the continuity of government and essential services. However, in adopting whatever model we do, there is still much—I really do mean much—that we could learn from the Scandinavian approach. My questions for the Government are the following. What model are we going for? Do we use the phrase “whole of society”, and, when we use it, what do we mean by it? Do we have anything in our mind's eye when we use the phrase?
As far as I can see, we have not done a great deal so far under the heading of resilience, beyond the sort of work that the preparedness commission has been doing, with the aim of any particular model emerging. I do not mean by that to say that we have been idle. That is not the case; as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has cited, climate work has been done, and there are other examples. But none of that has been drawn together or, as far as I can see, yet taken any legal form, nor do we have any settled machinery of government to take implementation forward.
The role and organisation of the Cabinet Office and its relationship to COBRA has in recent years been altered and then changed back, while yet other forms of resilience are going to be located elsewhere. To my surprise, it is DSIT that has found itself not just promoting science, technology and innovation but responsible for ensuring secure structures for cyber in government. Dotting responsibility for security around government seems pretty odd, when it has previously had a home in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office is a welcome antidote to one of the other problems that we face in the structure of our Government, which is the shortcomings that arise from the “lead government department” model.
The strategic defence review specifically mentioned the need to increase the protection of our vulnerable critical national infrastructure and called for a defence readiness Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned. We need to enable the mobilisation of our reserves and our industry to war-readiness levels, but there is a problem about delay. Mr Luke Pollard, in another place, has said that the Bill will come only towards the end of this parliamentary Session, and the way he put it rather suggested to my ears that it might not come even then. I hope we can have some reassurance from the Minister. After all, NATO’s assessment is that, by 2030, Russia may decide to step up its existing level of aggression in Europe to something that is truly frightening.
We need to be ready, but we are cutting it fine with all our preparations, are we not? I would say too fine. The Government talk about a national dialogue on defence, and I think this House agrees strongly with that, but they need to start ASAP. To make sense and to be clear and honest with the electorate about what they may be involved in, that needs to include aspects that come under the heading of resilience. That should include questions such as whether there is going to be some kind of national service.
I come back to my questions. What are the Government going to propose to the country by way of a whole-of-society approach? What is going to be asked of us? A significant chunk of the picture still seems to be missing. In his reply, could the Minister begin to fill in some of the detail?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on securing this important and timely debate and introducing it in such a persuasive way. I confess to being somewhat daunted to be following the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, whose experience is so relevant to this debate and whose speech was full of questions that need to be answered. Coming after the chairman of the National Preparedness Committee and a former Secretary of State for Security, I am a mere amateur in this area.
I start from a different point of view: that of someone who has studied and been active in business. In that capacity, I have encountered many a risk register. I have noted a tendency to believe that once a risk is identified and placed on the register, it has been dealt with. In the Government’s latest incarnation of the National Risk Register, 89 specific areas of risk are identified. I wonder whether the Government are in any way confident that each of these is being addressed.
In his foreword to the document, Pat McFadden—then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who chairs the Cabinet committee on resilience—stressed the need for transparency about risks and said:
“We need everyone to play their part in building resilience”.
Of course, he was absolutely correct. If businesses are to be successful in navigating their way through risks, they need to involve all their people in the effort. It is no good if the chief risk officer identifies the risks and the risk committee pores over them and nods, and so it is with the country. In a company, everybody has to be involved. They have to know the risks and they have to be involved in addressing them. It is the same in the country. My concern is that the Government are failing to involve the public.
Pat McFadden referred to the guidance for the public at the Government’s Prepare website; the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made reference to it. But can the Minister tell the House how many people have visited that site? How many even know of its existence? If they were to take a look, they would find that it refers to:
“Emergencies such as flooding, fires and power cuts”.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made the case for such risks to be integral to any national resilience plan, and he is right, but we have to stop being so squeamish about the fact that we face another increasingly real risk: war.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who wrote the pivotal strategic defence review, spelled out the danger:
“We are under-prepared. We are under-insured. We are under attack. We are not safe”.
This is not an easy message to hear, but it is the truth. There should be no further delay in ensuring that the public are made fully aware of this. A national conversation or national dialogue has long been promised, but this is not the subject for a cosy fireside chat or interminable consultations. The Government need to tell the public about the risks of warfare that we now face, and ensure that people are prepared. Talking about it just does not do the job.
Other countries face up to the problem. They are very effective in getting their message across without unnecessarily scaring people. Some, such as Taiwan and Finland, can see the threat because it is in such close proximity. But technology means that the enemy need not be visible. Russia has assassinated people on our soil and infiltrated our electoral process. It has made its presence well and truly felt. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, “We are not safe”. When will the Government take their responsibilities seriously, trust the public and tell them to be ready, to prepare?
National resilience and defence readiness are not different things. They should be addressed together, and a joint Bill is clearly the answer. After all, how often have we seen the military called in to help in civil situations? Public involvement is crucial. Reserve forces must be recruited, volunteers lined up and trained, and businesses and the education sector brought into the effort.
In Finland, senior business leaders train alongside government officials in how to build resilience and schools prepare their pupils. We shy away from being frank with our children, yet they regularly see images of war and violence. Are they supposed to think it could never happen here? Might it not be far more reassuring to be told that the threat is there but we can deal with it, and this is what you have to do to help?
In a recent essay, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper admitted that successive Governments have failed to level with the country. On defence, we have not yet had the kind of public engagement we need. Now is the time to put that right. The national resilience and defence Bill should kick off a concerted effort across the country to be prepared. Benjamin Franklin said that by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. He was not only a founding father of the United States but the man who invented bifocals—so a man of vision. If we have a vision of peace and security, we need to start working for it now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I was listening to her speaking about the 89 lines of the risk register. I am perhaps inspired by the fact that I was yesterday with the campaign group More Than a Score doing SATs exams. Perhaps we could set an exam for when we have a new Cabinet and Government. A couple of months afterwards, they could all sit down and do an exam on the risk register to prove that they understand it and then tell us what they are going to do about it.
Like all speakers already, and no doubt all coming speakers, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for securing this debate and for the brilliant work that he and the preparedness committee do. We begin this debate in a bad position. There are many concerns about the lack of resilience and defence capacity in the UK, but I am referring to a much more specific issue—an issue for this House, this Parliament. We do not have the information we need to understand the crucial basic problem of food security, and the lack of it in the UK.
I am referring to the joint intelligence chiefs’ report on the impact of nature’s collapse and food security—a problem around the world. I note that just yesterday, Mary Creagh, a Defra Minister, told MPs that a redacted 14-page version of some of the findings, published after repeated freedom of information requests in January, should provide enough information. The Cabinet Office refused to send a Minister or official to the Environmental Audit Committee to answer these questions.
This is a serious cause for concern. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, just said, this appears to be in a context in which the Government are focused on trying not to scare people, specifically on food security. I have heard testimony from multiple experts who have been trying to get the Government to warn the public about the insecurity of our food supplies and about the need, where they can—for many, it is not financially viable—to create some private food stores and stores of fresh drinking water kept up to date.
I have been asking the Government about whether they will consider holding public government stores of food. Switzerland holds three months for the whole country and is looking to go to 12. I got a very clear answer to a Written Question from the Government: “No, we are not considering that. We think the market will provide”. I am afraid that is not what the experts are saying. Like others, I do not think that keeping the public in ignorance is the way to manage this situation. That produces fear. It produces anger—something we are seeing a great deal of. Being honest and open with the public about the fact that we have a huge food security issue and need to think about changing our entire food system to tackle this, and in the meantime providing points of security along the way, is crucial.
Coming back to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, noble Lords can now see very clearly where I and the Green Party stand on the question of whether we need just a defence readiness Bill or a much broader defence and resilience Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we face many threats in this age of shocks, as we have now shifted our global climate from the very stable Holocene into the very unstable Anthropocene. We have a great many health threats, many of them associated with biodiversity collapse. To cross-reference the previous debate on space, we have a society and an economy that are hugely dependent on satellites. We heard about the risk of the Kessler effect and the cascading loss of the satellites on which we are entirely dependent. These are all risks we need to understand, assess and manage.
I thought the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, was really interesting. She is absolutely right: we have not defined “the whole of society”. That term is thrown around, but I suggest that we need something broader. We have seen a very obvious example of this in Finland and Poland both considering rewetting their peatlands as a potential defence against Russian aggression. We have to think about the state of nature—yes, I am cross-referencing my Bill from last Friday—as part of our security and resilience. The peatlands are very obvious, but if we have healthy soils, clean rivers and clean air then we are a much stronger and more resilient society that is able to take whatever is thrown at us. More than the whole of society, we have to think about the whole of the system—human and more than human. The resilience of all those systems together is a measure of our security as a society.
This is where I am going to lose some people who have been with me up to now: although we keep chasing growth, growth and resilience go in two different directions. A seedling that is growing at great speed, is heavily fertilised and receives lots of irrigation water is not going to survive in tough conditions if you have not looked after the soil or ensured that it can stand up against the wind. We need something that is tough, strong and can take knocks. Simply chasing growth means going in the opposite direction to that, and it is a dangerous direction.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is right: I was with her up until the divergence of growth and resilience. Like other noble Lords, I am truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for tabling this Question and for the authority he brings to the debate through his work at the National Preparedness Commission. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve and as vice-chair of the All-Party Group for Climate, Nature and Security.
The core purpose of a defence readiness Bill is right. The power to mobilise our reserves and industrial base before a crisis becomes a conflict is precisely what the strategic defence review was correct to demand. However, the question before us is not only when the Bill will come but what it should contain. On that, the noble Lord is asking exactly the right question.
The instinct to keep the Bill narrow and treat it as a purely military instrument for a purely military emergency misunderstands the threats set out in our national risk register. The register draws no neat line between hostile state action and everything else. It lists pandemic influenza, severe flooding, prolonged power failure and the cascading loss of critical national infrastructure. When any of those materialises, the mechanisms we reach for are strikingly similar to the ones the Bill would create: we call on the reserves, we lean on logistics and private sector capacity, and we depend on the local resilience forums to hold the response together on the ground. It makes little sense to build those powers for one category of shock and leave them unavailable for the others.
There is a further dimension that this House should not overlook: the state of the infrastructure on which all our resilience ultimately rests. Much of it is ageing and some of it is, frankly, crumbling. We cannot be resilient against a pandemic, flood or hostile act if the pipes, grid and water storage that the country depends on are already failing under ordinary conditions.
I think it was on the Sporting Events Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, talked about the London 2012 Olympics and how the traffic lights could be controlled positively to let sportspeople and officials through without delay. Conversely, that could be cyber attacked or gridlocked. Anyone trying to drive through London not in the middle of the night may think that we are already under some sort of traffic light attack.
Renewing infrastructure is itself an act of national preparedness. Here lies the opportunity: when we rebuild, we can design in security and resilience from the very start, hardening assets against both the storm and the saboteur, rather than bolting protection on afterwards at far greater cost. Upgrade and protection are not competing claims on the budget; done together, they are one investment.
To take one example, we desperately need new water storage, yet no major reservoir has been completed in England since 1992. The nearest new scheme, the Fens reservoir, is not expected online until 2036 and the Lincolnshire reservoir not until 2040. That is more than a decade away for infrastructure that we need now. I do not accept that a reservoir should take the better part of 15 years to deliver. With the will and a planning regime built for urgency rather than delay, there is no reason why a scheme of this kind should not be built in more than two or three years. If we are serious about resilience, we must be serious about the pace at which we build the things that make us resilient.
This is not scope creep for its own sake; it is a matter of coherence and our treaty obligations. Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires each of us to maintain the resilience to withstand and recover from major shocks, and that resilience is not distinguished by the origin of the shock. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, proposed that the Bill should follow the model of the Climate Change Act 2008, with a statutory duty to assess our baseline preparedness, set targets for improvement and report annually on progress. I find that a persuasive architecture.
We do not need to start completely from scratch. We can build a national resilience framework that is a benchmark to our preparedness, using means already at our disposal. As a starting point, we could use the military framework of fighting power. The conceptual is how we think about resilience: what are our strategy and tactics for dealing with such a shock? The moral is the national conversation that other noble Lords have spoken about, understanding why we need to be resilient and the motivation. Then there is the physical: the flood defences, the back-up generators, the stores of bottled water. The concepts are already there; we just need to implement them and do so at pace.
I put two questions to the Minister. First, will the mobilisation powers in the forthcoming defence readiness Bill be capable of activation for the civil emergencies listed in the national risk register and not solely for escalation toward armed conflict? Secondly, will the Government commit to a breakdown of the £4.2 billion allocated to the reserves between now and 2030—on page 61 of the DIP, for anyone who is checking—given the importance to the reserves of in-year funding?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has brought forward a very timely debate. If we were in any doubt of that, we need only to think about the business of the House today, where there was a Statement on the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. One might think that that issue could be contributing, if not to hybrid warfare, to something of which politicians and ordinary members of society need to be aware.
We have heard about hybrid threats. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, reminded us of the poisonings on our soil. Other noble Lords may, like me, have received an email this morning from Cyber Security, which is the Lords’ phishing education programme. It sent me a little email saying, “We sent you the email below to try to make sure that you wouldn’t get caught out by phishing”. Again, that is not something we would necessarily think of as defence readiness, yet it is the sort of issue the whole of society needs to think about.
There was a set of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about what we mean by the “whole of society”. I had assumed from reading the SDR, from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, from other contributions today and from the Minister’s past speeches that the “whole of society” means what it says on the tin: that we need to be prepared—not just policymakers, the Ministry of Defence and people dealing with specific issues concerning security, cyber security, hard security and critical infrastructure, but every individual.
We heard today how some countries, particularly our new NATO allies Finland and Sweden, do a very good job in preparing their citizens. What lessons have His Majesty’s Government taken from our partners and allies? Circulating booklets to households and businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, suggested, is one thing, but will that really do the job? Will people really say, “Oh, a leaflet has come through the letterbox. I’d better read it, make a note of it, get my wind-up radio and my battery torch, and make sure I’ve stocked the cupboards and got clean water”? They could do something else. Obviously, as a Liberal Democrat, I do not want to believe this, but I understand that, when we put leaflets through letterboxes, sometimes they do not get read. Sometimes, they go directly into the recycling bin—if we are lucky. Obviously, if leaflets went out on national resilience and preparedness, they would have a measure of gravitas and weight, coming from the Government. But equally, there is a real danger that people will not necessarily read a document.
So we need to be very open to a whole range of different approaches to how we have the conversation the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, talked about. It cannot just be leaflets through doors, and a conversation in and of itself is not enough either. A conversation is useful, but we need that to be the start, not the end. It needs to be an opportunity to persuade people—wherever they are in the United Kingdom, whatever their background, whatever their work interests and whatever their personal interests and circumstances—that they need to stop and be much more aware. I understand that there are parts of the country where people still feel that they can leave their front door unlocked and nobody will walk in. Most of us do not feel like that, and we need to make people aware that there are all sorts of other aspects of their lives where they need to be aware and mindful of what may come forward.
In order not to cause an unwelcome emergency on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Whips like us to arrive many minutes before the start of the next item of business. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, arrived 15 minutes after me, but when I arrived on my Benches, I could see a look of relief from one of our Whips. I thought I had timed my arrival well, because I was thus able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, speak in the previous debate on space. It was interesting because, as I listened to him, I thought that if I did shorthand and transcribed what he said at the end of the debate, it would have been perfectly suitable for a debate about national and defence readiness and resilience. The noble Viscount talked about businesses needing certainty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also referred to. That is crucial for our defence readiness. Businesses need to know what the Government’s priorities are. They need to know when contracts are likely to be let.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, also said, there is an increasingly crowded marketplace. He was talking about space, which is one aspect of defence, but it is also true in other aspects of defence. This is the point where, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I beg to part company from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because dual-use technology is hugely important. The whole-of-society approach should be about persuading individuals, and it also needs to be about working closely with businesses, partly on defence investment and R&D.
My final point is on reserves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, pointed out in the debate on Monday, the role of reserves is crucial. We need to prepare businesses to be aware that their reserves may be called up. That needs to be part of a whole-of-society planning process.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that I would not take when I arrive for a debate as a model for anything. I can say without fear of contradiction that my Whips will endorse that sentiment. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for enabling this debate. It is not just timely; it is important. I thank him for the persistence with which he has pursued these critical issues of resilience and preparedness. I will structure my contribution around three simple propositions: the defence readiness Bill is not ready; the national conversation that was supposed to accompany it is currently mute; and the Treasury’s purse strings, as evidenced by the DIP, remain bleakly closed. Each failing compounds the others, and together they explain why, a year on from the strategic defence review, we are still debating proposals rather than debating action.
On the first point, let me be blunt about the timeline. The strategic defence review recommended this legislation over a year ago. It was absent from the King’s Speech in May. Ministers have told this House and the other place that proposals are being developed, that officials are working at pace and that the Bill will come forward later in this Parliament. We have words, but no date. The authors of the review have made no secret of their frustration at the yawning gap between the urgency of their conclusions and the glacial pace of their implementation—a frustration that I think we all inferred from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, today. Speaking before the Defence Committee this week, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said:
“We are running out of years, and the reality is the challenge is now bigger and more serious and earlier than we anticipated, and yet the defence investment plan itself does not come up to it”.
These words of the noble Lord should bring the Government up short.
The second point is on the national conversation. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, is correct to say that this is not some fireside chat. The review was explicit that a whole-of-society approach requires the Government to level with the country about the threats we face, the sacrifices that resilience may demand and the roles that reserves, industry, local authorities and ordinary citizens might all be asked to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, so eloquently—indeed, chillingly—described.
Instigating at least the planning for how that conversation should be structured, followed by rollout, could have started a year ago. Where is it? Is the Minister still the lead on it, or is that to be found somewhere else in government? I hope the Minister is the lead on it. If there is any ambiguity, I have a piece of advice for him: you plough the furrow and make the others follow, because I happen to think the Minister would make a good job of it.
Quite apart from the financial implications of all of this, my noble friend Lord Harlech rightly pointed out that if the Government intend to ask the public to accept new obligations, whether on mobilisation, infrastructure or preparedness in their own communities, the public have to be brought into this discussion long before the legislation is passed, not presented with it as a fait accompli. This vacuum, in my opinion, is doing damage and potentially creating danger because complacency is filling the void. The watchword should be “urgency”.
Thirdly, and perhaps most tellingly, there is the Treasury. Every government document on this subject is written in the conditional: commitments when circumstances allow, ambitions for the next Parliament, targets that recede as the calendar advances. The 3% ambition remains an ambition. The gulf between what the review says is needed and what the Treasury is willing to make available remains. If anything, fiscal pressures have made that gulf wider and starker. The same timidity that produced 10 months of delay on the defence investment plan is stamped all over this Bill. A readiness Bill that arrives without the resources to make readiness real will be a Bill in name only, a framework, a skeleton with no functioning limbs. I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House that this legislation will not become simply another unfunded commitment layered on top of all the others.
I have three questions for the Minister. When precisely will the Bill be introduced? What concrete steps are being taken to start the national conversation that the SDR said was indispensable? Can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has agreed to fund the powers the Bill will create or are we again being asked to legislate first and pay later? I think we are all agreed that the country’s resilience is critical and it cannot be built on aspiration alone, however worthy. I hope the Minister can offer some comfort and provide some details of substantive proposals, rather than rhetoric.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I certainly never resort to rhetoric, so the noble Baroness has my assurance on that. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for introducing such an important debate, and everyone who has contributed to it. The MoD is developing this work, and I will say a bit more about that, but the overall responsibility across the whole of government is with the Cabinet Office. I know noble Lords understand that, but it is important to lay down again that the co-ordinating function is for the Cabinet Office. Notwithstanding that, the Ministry of Defence has a crucial role and will do what it can to accelerate the progress that many have mentioned.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and other contributors to the debate that the defence readiness Bill will be introduced in this Parliament. I cannot go any further than that. I cannot remember who it was, but somebody said it would be introduced in the next Parliament. The Government’s intention is to introduce it in this Parliament, which is as far as I can go.
In terms of the scope of the Bill, which goes to the heart of the question and is the point of the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Harris, what the defence readiness Bill should contain is under discussion, so there are talks going on about what the scope should be. Many of the other points that have been raised are the responsibility of other government departments. At the same time, other pieces of legislation which deal with some of this are being looked at. One example that has just come to mind for me is the Civil Contingencies Act, but there are all sorts of other pieces of legislation which are important as well.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that NATO has seven resilience requirements and, as part of NATO, we and all the members accept them. They deal with many of the points that have been raised: continuity of government, energy supplies, dealing with uncontrolled movement of people, food and water resources, mass casualties, civil communications systems and civil transportation schemes. All of those deal with some of the infrastructure problems and challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned. They are part of a readiness programme which all member states in NATO will be looking at.
My noble friend Lord Harris and others mentioned the important point about the changing nature of warfare and the importance of understanding that war is about cyber, climate and information and all the things we have talked about. We need to address those as well in any plan that we bring forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked when the Bill would be introduced. I answered that. She asked me to define “the whole of society”. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, did it quite well. We can tie ourselves in knots about what the whole of society means but we all know that what we are talking about is everybody’s responsibility. Every part of society has a part to play, whether it be business, industry, government agencies, voluntary organisations, the military, individuals or groups of people—the list goes on—the devolved Administrations, local authorities and local resilience forums. All those have to be involved in bringing a plan together and in any conversation. The challenge is how you do that in a constructive and co-ordinated way that is not fragmented. As I say, the whole of society—
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
I thank the Minister for making that clear. It is an ambitious aim—in my view, it should be.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.
To answer the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from the NATO resilience actions she can see many of the things that will need to be addressed and will be addressed as we go forward. Like, I suspect, many people in the Chamber, I disagree with her about growth. I have never seen growth and the environment as conflicting. You need good growth and alongside that you need to care for the environment, but you have to have growth in the economy and trying to bring about that growth is really important.
On the NATO seven resilience actions, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the national conversation is absolutely fundamental. We accept that. If I was going to criticise myself, I think I mentioned to the noble Baroness that I have been moved from the national conversation; in the reorganisation it has gone to another person. I have taken on a couple of other functions within the Ministry of Defence and that has gone to somebody else. In a moment, I will come to something that I tried to do. I would not say it was “ploughing a furrow” but it was an attempt to get it moving.
I say seriously to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that of course the national conversation is really important and fundamental to it. We are not frightened of doing it; the discussion is about the right way of doing it. That is the conversation and that is difficult. What exactly is the message that you want to get across? You have to ensure that people can rise to the challenge without frightening them. A discussion and debate would take place, if we had it in here, about what that means and what that should be. But the noble Baroness is quite right about the need for a national conversation and for us to move more quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, whose service as an active reservist I always try to note, will know that in the Armed Forces Bill, due to be in Committee in September, there are a number of measures about the reserves. One of them is to reduce the threshold at which you can recall reserves from “almost imminent war” to “war readiness”. It would be interesting for us to debate what war readiness means. Committee might be the time for the noble Lord to table an amendment—not to vote on, but to explore the Government’s thinking. We are trying to lower the threshold, and the noble Lord makes an important point about that. The wider point, which my noble friend Lord Harris referred to, is whether it should be not just for war but for some of the other things we have talked about. We can have that discussion. On that issue, he will know that additional sums of money are being made available; usually, it would be left up to the reserve commanders themselves to look at how that might be allocated.
I have answered many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised. On national conversations, the lesson from Finland and some of the other Baltic countries is the way they have found to speak to their people without unduly worrying them while alerting them to the change. The big thing about what they do and their example to us—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others talked about this—is the importance of homeland defence. The military and conflict have always been seen as about war in the traditional sense. From a UK point of view, it is almost seen as going overseas or on to the continent of Europe, whereas we are now talking about a threat to the homeland. How we deal with that is an important challenge for us all. It takes the UK into territory that we have not been in for quite a significant period, particularly since we have not been occupied in that sense, depending on how far you go back—noble Lords understand the point I am making.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the national conversation. She is quite right that it will be somebody else’s responsibility, but I have done work within the department which I hope will help move it forward. As she knows, there are drafts and drafts. We are alert in the department to the need for the MoD to move forward and talk with other government departments about what responsibilities they should have to deal with something so important. I have answered her point about the defence readiness Bill, though perhaps not with the certainty she would want. We have discussed the finance; I know she specifically asked about the defence readiness Bill, but she can be assured that we will make the case for how important it is to fund it properly.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, which is hugely important. There are all sorts of things going on across government and society to deal with this issue. It is an absolute priority for the Government and all noble Lords. We all want to accelerate the progress and process. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made the point that we should get on with it, and we would all agree with that. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for introducing the debate. It has been a very important one.
Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That this House takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee The rule of law: holding the line against tyranny and anarchy (13th Report, HL Paper 211, Session 2024–26).
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate as chair of the Constitution Committee.
Noble Lords will have heard many times politicians and others praying in aid adherence to the rule of law and avowing its importance. Yet very few people seem to understand what it represents and how fundamental it is to our constitution. The Constitution Committee conducted a long and detailed inquiry into the rule of law and published its report towards the end of last year. This was prompted by a sense that the rule of law was being threatened in many parts of the world. We wanted to understand the extent to which we in the UK should also be concerned by that.
It was a privilege to chair the committee during the inquiry, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to it—our witnesses and my fellow members, whose knowledge and experience greatly strengthened the final report, and some of whom are speaking today. I am sorry that time constraints meant that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had to scratch. They played an important part in our deliberations. I mention in particular our excellent secretariat and clerks, who delivered our witnesses, our drafts and good humour, even when we became embroiled in the weeds of the subject.
Over nine months, we received more than 100 written submissions and heard from judges, practising lawyers, the police, journalists and young people. We deliberately sought views from people not normally asked for those views. The result is a report that seeks to provide an accessible evolution to our understanding of the rule of law, as well as to ask whether we are doing enough to preserve and strengthen it.
The rule of law is one of the defining principles of our constitution. It has deep roots in our history, reaching back centuries all the way to Magna Carta and, many argue, beyond. The rule of law is one of the foundations on which both democratic government and personal liberty depend. That is why we subtitled our report Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy, recognising that the rule of law protects us from both the tyranny of an overbearing state and the mob rule of anarchy. It guards against both extremes.
It is also more than this: the rule of law underpins economic prosperity, facilitating business and trade. In the UK, it contributes to our global reputation, not least because businesses from all over the world choose to have their contracts governed by English law. Given its importance, it is unsurprising that the rule of law is frequently invoked in this House and elsewhere. We proclaim our attachment to it, and we vow to protect it.
But what does it actually mean? The answer is not always straightforward. The rule of law is a slippery concept that is difficult to pin down. It is also beset by complicated academic and political debates about so-called thick and thin conceptions, which differ over whether human rights and international law are part of it. These debates around the definition of the rule of law give the impression that it is a contested idea, but it is deeply embedded as a British value in ideas of fairness, equality and justice.
Some years ago, the noble and learned Lord Bingham made a key set of definitions of the rule of law, on which the committee sought to build. The committee’s view was that the rule of law is perhaps best understood as a culture. People obey the law because they trust that others will do the same. They accept court judgments because they trust the independence and integrity of the judiciary. They engage in business and trade because they trust that contracts will be respected and enforced.
This culture is under strain. Increasingly, people lack confidence in the rule of law. They see increasing amounts of street crime, shoplifting and bicycle and mobile phone theft, but doubt that the offenders will ever be caught or fear that the police will be disinterested in what they perceive to be mostly irrelevant crime. The perpetrators are rarely held to account. Others encounter lengthy delays in the justice system while being faced with prohibitive costs to access legal advice and representation. At the same time, some politicians and parts of the media tell them that judges undermine Parliament and pursue personal agendas. The collective effort is to weaken confidence in the rule of law and the institutions responsible for upholding it.
One area that particularly concerned the committee was the treatment of the judiciary. Judges, both individually and as a whole, have been increasingly vilified in public debate. They are accused of interfering in politics and of deciding cases according to their personal views. This has spilled over into personal attacks and threats to their safety.
These attacks need to stop. That is certainly not to say that discussion and debate of judgment is off limits, but judges should be able to carry out their job without fear of retaliation. Otherwise, there is a threat to the independence of the judiciary. The Government must set the tone in promptly and clearly dismissing misleading information about judgments. They have a duty to defend the judiciary against unwarranted attacks. The Lady Chief Justice in her evidence was particularly strong on the subject, and we agreed with her. I have little time for judges seeking to expand their own boundaries or indulging in judicial activism, but I wholly accept their constitutional independence.
Access to justice is a further essential part of the rule of law. There is no point having laws and rights if they cannot be enforced and upheld. However, we frequently heard about backlogs, delays and difficulties in obtaining legal advice and representation. The Government must take decisive action to improve access to justice and to tackle delays—not the blunt instrument of scrapping jury trials but exploring creative solutions. Technology has an important role to play in realising efficiencies across the justice system such as digitising remaining paper-based processes. Where appropriate, the use of alternative dispute resolution should be encouraged.
We also looked at the role of Parliament. As we all know, parliamentary sovereignty is the supreme constitutional principle, but Parliament also has a responsibility to the rule of law, especially as we carry out our primary role on legislation. Laws should be clear. They should be accessible. They should be capable of being understood by those expected to obey them. Excessive complexity, performative legislation and the inappropriate use of delegated powers all make these objectives harder to achieve. This Government are not the sole Government to be guilty of doing these things. It has happened with previous Governments too, but we should never stop seeking to improve the quality of our legislation and reducing our reliance on delegated powers. We therefore urge parliamentarians to keep the rule of law front and centre when scrutinising legislation—and the Government when drafting it.
The central message of our report is that the rule of law is not just a constitutional principle but the invisible thread that governs our everyday lives. It is most definitely not just the concern of lawyers. It matters to everyone. That is why we should start with children. It should be better taught and understood in schools. This is what enables citizens to challenge power, businesses to invest with confidence, communities to live in peace and democratic government to command legitimacy. These are what count and help to provide stability in a complex world.
We should take pride in the United Kingdom’s long tradition of respect for the rule of law but, as I said earlier, pride must never become complacency. There can be no doubt that the rule of law faces genuine pressures. Those pressures can be addressed, but only if we recognise them and actively choose to defend the rule of law. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it was a great privilege to serve on the Constitution Committee and a great pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, particularly for this important report. As the House might expect, he conducted the committee with tremendous brio and a great sense of democracy within the committee as well. I apologise to the House, because I am bound to repeat and to reinforce much of what he has said about the significance of the report and the way we pursued it.
It is the singular task of the Constitution Committee to hold the elements of constitutional democracy up to the light, to show how it works for real people. This was one of the most penetrating outcomes of that very important report. Six months on, with the Iran war more unsettled than ever and the rule of law increasingly embattled, it is paramount that we in the UK are unconditional in our commitment to the principle and the practice of it at home and abroad.
That is why this inquiry was so important and so timely, but it was a brave choice and a brave chair. It was a very challenging inquiry in breadth and depth, reaching back to the roots of our democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, but also reaching into a very uncertain future. Tom Paine, whom I lay claim to as another resident of Lewes, would have applauded the title and particularly the subtitle—The Rule of Law: Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy—because it articulates his own deep conviction in the American context of 1776 that in free countries,
“the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other”.
Two hundred and fifty years on, that is being put to the test every day in the United States; the committee was only too aware of that. As we have heard already, there are passions attached to differing interpretations of the rule of law—the vocabulary of thick and thin—to the extent that it would have been very easy to fall prey to falling into an academic and sterile hole, but we did not. We did debate where the boundaries of the rule of law might fall, but we focused on what the rule of law means as people experience it in their daily lives, and that is why it is important. We also looked at the challenges to the justice system and to Parliament itself. We looked hard at the contract wired into our culture, which has meant that trust in the law to keep us safe has lasted for centuries. But there was no escaping the evidence that this reciprocal culture is at risk. That evidence suggests that disrespect for the law has been emboldened since Covid, with the paradox of draconian legislation that was felt by many not to have been evenly applied.
There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, alluded to, that the infamous attack on judges as “enemies of the people” some years ago gave a green light for attacks on the independence of the judiciary. We were particularly shocked by the evidence he has already cited, and by the very stark statement of the Lady Chief Justice that judges now need to have “moral courage”. I would say physical courage as well, in light of the evidence.
Secondly, the evidence showed that the culture of trust in the law to work for everyone equally is also fragile. To defeat tyranny and anarchy, justice must be seen to work: to be accessible, effective and fair. It is a truism, but like all truisms it is actually true. The evidence suggests that for many people, this is simply not the case. Our witnesses came from across the spectrum—judges and community activists—and all agreed that free legal advice was virtually invisible in some communities. In the whole of Greater Manchester there is only one law centre for 2.8 million people. Most advice is now limited to information; it does not go as far as legal assistance. That failure is compounded by documented cuts to legal aid; the horrendous waiting lists for the courts, including people who are on remand; the physical disintegration—the decay—of the legal estate; and the growth of crimes that are anything but victimless.
No wonder people feel that the idea of justice is meaningless as far as they are concerned. The system itself feels disempowered. Part of the problem is that the law is not taught early enough, widely enough or broadly enough. Our recommendations address all these issues. I have alerted the Minister to a specific question: what happened to the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group, which was set up by the MoJ?
For this place, the most profound question is: how confident can we be in our own future as the bulwark against tyranny and anarchy? The Victorians were better informed about Parliament than we are. What has happened to the political reporters or the serious commentators? They have virtually disappeared. Do Members of Parliament, or we in this House, know enough about the constitution, the legal system and what constitutes legal certainty, to be clear where the risks are? Do we know who is accountable for safeguarding the constitution? Do our laws stand the test of the basic requirements: that they should be clear, accessible, prospective, predictable, possible to obey, free of conflict? Does Parliament use its power to interrogate Ministers and to hold them to account? If I were marking this paper, I would give the House a C+ at best.
The volume of legislation is only one issue. Take pensions regulation; it has grown from 3,000 pages to 165,000 pages since 1990. Worse is the sheer complexity, which defeats even the most distinguished lawyers. I think with fear of the forthcoming legislation on leasehold reform. The loss of Keeling schedules, the delays in implementing consolidation, and the accumulative legislation required to correct and revise mean that few can find meaning, let alone definitive meaning. On the other hand, equally dismaying are skeletal Bills that evade interrogation, and careless delegation that hides decisions and cannot be changed. These are serious and familiar charges in this House—this is our special subject. We need not to debate more but to act now. As the report emphasises, Parliament must take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and, I add, visibly.
I return to Tom Paine, who said that
“the Constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, and every political physician will advise a different medicine”.
He was right about the constitution but would be wrong about our report, because it was very clear in its diagnosis and prescription. We are seeking not to blame but to identify and incentivise responsibility for ensuring that the rule of law is not an abstract construction but is positively promoted in every respect.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
I declare an interest as a serving member of the supplementary panel of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
The report of the Constitution Committee, to which I contributed as a member, is a timely reminder of the importance of the rule of law as a vital constitutional safeguard. It is something that is largely taken for granted, but that it has been the subject of so much discussion in recent years is itself a sign of growing concern about its vulnerability. I congratulate our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his skilful navigation through a subject that is apt to be diverted into academic byways and alleyways by focusing on the practical. In the few minutes available, I will touch briefly on two subjects: the independence of the judiciary, to which there has already been reference, and a discrete aspect of access to justice.
Judicial independence is central to the rule of law. It is reflected in the judicial oath to
“do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”.
Judicial independence enables judges to administer justice impartially and to treat equally those who appear before them. Equality before the law is a cardinal principle. Our report noted the importance of judicial independence—independence from the Executive and Parliament, of course, but also from all who might seek to put pressure on courts, not just politicians. That includes the press, large corporations, trade unions, activists and campaigners. Judges are required to resist all such pressure.
As we have heard, judicial independence is undermined when judges are attacked personally for a decision or their integrity is impugned. An expression of disagreement with the outcome of a case is entirely unobjectionable, but the growth of personal vilification—in which, regrettably, from time to time politicians have joined—crosses the line into a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary. Examples are multiplying. Even this week, a High Court judge was accused by disappointed litigants of a “complete and obvious whitewash”. Judges speak through their judgments and cannot answer back. That is why the Constitutional Reform Act imposes duties on the Lord Chancellor to defend the independence of the judiciary.
The committee recognised that:
“A culture of hostility towards the judiciary has been allowed to develop in recent years because of inappropriate, and often inaccurate, public criticism by politicians”,
and others, with
“inadequate defence from government”.
We distinguish in the report between discussion and debate about judgments and personal attacks on judges or the judiciary as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has noted, such attacks should stop. Importantly, we added that Ministers, particularly the Lord Chancellor, must speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack. It needed saying, and I fear that obligation will become more onerous as time goes by.
The very existence of a functioning courts and tribunal system, with an independent judiciary, means that most disputes are sorted out before lawyers are involved and before proceedings are threatened or issued, and even when issued, many are resolved without a final determination. But cases which need final resolution by the courts must be capable of being heard in a timely fashion. Timeliness, at least in my opinion, is more important than a fixation on outstanding case numbers.
Now is not the time to talk about the difficulties in the criminal courts. We may yet get an opportunity to do so—or maybe we will not. My views are well known and do not align with the centre of gravity of legal opinion, but my short point is a general one. When Parliament legislates, with the result that new rights and obligations are created, government must ensure that the relevant courts and tribunals are ready to deal with the increased caseload. The late Lord Etherton raised this issue powerfully with respect to the significant changes found in the recent renters’ rights legislation, both as passed and as originally proposed by the last Government. Similar points have been made regarding the employment rights legislation. It is doubtful whether the courts and tribunals that will deal with the resulting disputes can do so in a timely fashion. Legislation and legislating are not the end of the story. If the rights created cannot be readily and quickly enforced, they may turn out to be hollow.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am told that we should never start a speech with an apology, but I sincerely apologise if I have to leave before the end of the debate to get back up to Scotland—I had not expected the debate to be taken so late. I did not want to withdraw, as I was very keen to participate in the debate on this important topic, as a member of the Constitution Committee at the time.
It is a vital topic, though I was a bit sceptical about it. As members of the committee will know, I thought it would be hijacked by the lawyers into a very dry topic, but it has proved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, to be a really important issue. This is an excellent report from the Constitution Committee, ably chaired, may I say, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He and I have crossed swords in Ayrshire from time to time, but I have great respect for the way he chaired the committee through this report.
The most striking observation from the report is that the greatest threat to the rule of law does not come from a dramatic crisis but can emerge gradually through declining institutional standards, weakened scrutiny and political rhetoric which encourages the loss of faith in our democratic institutions.
Take the case of Henry Nowak. Okay, the police failed in their duty, but they are being held accountable and, as the report says, individual failures within an institution should not be used as an excuse to undermine that institution completely. Sadly, in the Nowak case, before the facts were established, Reform UK immediately sought to use that tragedy to claim, wrongly, that Britain has a system of two-tier policing against white people. That is the kind of dangerous politicking the report warns against.
The committee is equally clear that no individual or institution is beyond scrutiny. The conviction of Peter Murrell for embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP is an example which reminds us vividly of the consequences of the failure of internal governance. This case exposed the prolonged weakness of accountability and oversight in one of our largest parties in Scotland and, with the more recent revelations of over £1 million missing from the Yes Scotland campaign, there is sadly more yet to come. An organisation where the leader and chief executive are a married couple, where anyone who raises questions—as people did—is summarily dismissed and where accountants resign in protest, is an example of the failure of the rule of law. The rule of law depends on transparency, independent oversight and the confidence that wrongdoing will ultimately be exposed, but that is not yet the case in the SNP scandal.
The committee’s most important message is that there is a difference between demanding better of our institutions and encouraging the public to lose faith in them, and that distinction really matters. When police make mistakes, they are investigated. If political parties fail, we should seek to reform them. If Governments overreach, Parliament should take them to task. Those are not signs that the rule of law has failed; they are actually evidence that the constitutional safeguards are working. The real danger is when political leaders suggest that the whole system is irredeemably corrupt or biased. Once confidence in democratic institutions is lost, it is very difficult for it to be rebuilt.
In this country, two of the threats to our democracy are, first, dark money—Russian, of course, but also from the USA, as we heard it in a Statement earlier today—influencing our politics and secondly, sadly, increasing disengagement in elections and politics, particularly among young people. That is why elsewhere, later on in this Session, I will be arguing that we should be closing loopholes in our electoral finance laws—we heard that again earlier today—and I will be supporting the introduction of compulsory voting, which has proved so successful in Australia. The most recent example of a crypto billionaire giving Farage £5 billion is not an isolated case, but it reminds us that there is a real danger of very rich people, both at home and overseas, taking or trying to take control of our democratic institutions unless we take urgent steps to avoid it.
To return to the report, it is about not just constitutional law but constitutional responsibility. It reminds us that the rule of law is sustained by institutions that are accountable, by Parliament exercising effective scrutiny, and by political leaders choosing responsibility over rhetoric. Recent examples—the exploitation of the Henry Nowak case by Reform, the Green Party’s failure to scrutinise candidates, and the corruption and lack of transparency of the SNP—show in different ways how confidence in our constitutional settlement can be weakened. However, the answer is not to diminish confidence in our institutions but to find ways, as the report says, to ensure that our institutions are transparent, accountable and worthy of trust, while resisting those who seek to turn any failures into evidence that the rule of law itself has collapsed. That, the report says, is the road to tyranny and to anarchy, which we must resist.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure not only to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who, happily, is restored to full health, but to find oneself on the same side of the argument as him, because for a good many years in another place, I had to suffer being on the wrong side of the argument. That was very uncomfortable. I also join with all the other members of the committee who have spoken in paying tribute to our chair and to the other members.
The other day, I read that Michelle Obama said that she had never met a white man who suffered from imposter syndrome. All I can tell you is that when the noble and learned Lords on our committee got going, I certainly felt imposter syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy, and Lord Burnett, are all wonderful, but they are also practical people as well as being very good lawyers. We have heard from two of the other members already, and we can all be proud of this report.
It is fitting that we debate this fundamental matter in the same week that we grieve for Lord Mackay who, if you wanted an embodiment of what the rule of law meant—practical but also learned—he was it. I will not go into too much detail, because I would get in trouble with former colleagues, but there were a couple of occasions in the Cabinet in which I was privileged to serve with him when more robust colleagues were going off in one direction or another. That beautiful Scottish brogue brought them back on to the safe line. Nobody wanted to argue with him.
I will make three short points and, although I endorse everything that has been said, I will not repeat what has been mentioned so far by colleagues. First—and this reflects something just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—there is a terrible cliché about at the moment that everything is broken in this country. Whenever we say that, we give succour to our enemies, both abroad and at home. The rule of law is not broken here. That is not to say that we should not be very careful to identify where new threats may come from, as this report does, and where corrections to present failings should be undertaken. But let us have enough of that cliché. We have the rule of law and we must protect it.
Secondly, for most of the last century, when civilisation faced destruction, either by Hitler or by Stalin, most attention was perhaps paid to the rule of law’s guardian against tyranny. Big Brother was the most potent fear, and it was a reasonable one. The danger of tyranny remains, of course, and a very real danger it is in much of the world. But now we must also watch for the other danger: anarchy. The irony is that our far bigger state has not become an all-powerful Big Brother. Can we really imagine that any of our departments of state would be as efficient as the terrifying departments in George Orwell’s book? I do not think it would actually work; it might even be described as being broken. The point is that as the state has become bigger, the paradox is that it has also become weaker. It has become an enormous juggernaut with its wheels stuck up to the axles in mud. We face that paradox—an enormous state which cannot plausibly reassure its citizens that it knows how to carry out its two central tasks: defence against foreign enemies and satisfactory maintenance of the law for ordinary people at home. It is the report’s concern for maintaining the confidence of ordinary people in the rule of law to which I want to add a little more colour today.
To quote the then Lord Chancellor and present Home Secretary when she was giving evidence to us, we cannot accept a situation where there
“is a sense that someone came in, robbed a shop…and absolutely nothing happened”.
When I asked her if she thought that the illegal arrival of small boats on our shores without apparent consequence undermined respect for the law, she answered yes—and she was right. There is beginning to be a real anxiety that elements of the rule of law are a bit of a bluff.
All is far from lost, though, and the splendid report by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, will greatly help to strengthen the police if it is followed through. It is vital that the ordinary citizen understand that the state has not backed off from its fundamental duty to face down criminality, big or small, at home as well as abroad.
Thirdly, the rule of law is based on consent, or at least acceptance. Law long precedes democracy, but without it, in Lord Sumption’s words to the committee, society is
“simply a fight for the more effective deployment of force”.
Consent or allegiance means understanding of and acceptance of the process by which laws are made.
For us, it is Parliament and the ancient and subtle generation of common law. That is why there is a problem with, for example, the ECHR. It is not that the judges are wicked or that all the judgments are bad; many are easily accepted as excellent. The problem is that the citizen’s consent is not embodied in the process by which those laws are developed. There is not—or not yet, at least—a genuine community of Europe which lies behind that body of law in the way that England, Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom lie behind our law. When the convention stops this Parliament doing things that the people want, people do not understand why.
Now we face an expansion of jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, has written powerfully about this. That is going to drive us mad if we are not careful, and will face us with the same problems. Those who raise these issues are not against the rule of law or the rules-based order in the world; we are warning and anxious that if we simply sign to courts and laws which our people feel do not embody their own feelings then we will end ourselves in difficulty. It is very difficult to leave these things, but it is not a criticism of the rule of law to raise questions about those issues.
The UK remains a bastion of the rule of law. It is well defended by the outstanding practitioners who appeared before our committee, but it is a bastion whose defence we should never take for granted.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable—
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
Oh! I did it wrong again. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to echo his words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the very embodiment of wisdom and decency, and a great Scots lawyer. It was a privilege to have known him.
It was an interesting challenge to be a member of the Constitution Committee, which undertook the inquiry on which this report is based. We have already heard from some of the distinguished noble Lords who served on the committee. I not only agree with all their points but thank them for all that I learned while sitting in their company during this inquiry.
It is a widely held misconception that examining aspects of the constitution is nothing more than a dry old academic exercise undertaken by dry old academics. It is not. This was a genuine inquiry. We explored a very wide range of issues and aspects, and we asked questions to which we did not already know the answers. We were often surprised by the conclusions to which we came after having considered the evidence.
Why do this report and this debate matter? I will make three brief points in answer to that question. First, they matter because one of our important conclusions was that safeguarding the rule of law is a shared responsibility. That responsibility lies not only with judges, lawyers, Ministers, parliamentarians, civil servants and public authorities but with every citizen. To maintain a free society, we must nurture a widespread culture of respect for the principles of the rule of law. Although this debate might not quite compete for audience figures with England against Norway—it probably will not even compete with children’s television—I sincerely hope that the fact we are having it is a small step in our quest to create a wider understanding of the importance of our constitutional conventions.
I have seen some excellent examples of citizenship education in many schools that I have visited over the years but, sadly, we discovered during our inquiry that this excellence does not occur widely throughout the country. Perhaps the end-of-term report for most schools on the subject of citizenship education would be, “Must try harder”. I am sure that the Minister will respond that citizenship education is a statutory requirement. Indeed it is, but teachers need more help: they need more training so that we can ensure that lessons are being effectively delivered. The committee’s recommendation at paragraph 246, which concerns helping schools to deliver education on citizenship, particularly deserves to be taken forward by the Government. Giving children an understanding that constitutional principles are the very foundations of our free society is the first step in creating good and responsible leaders for the next generation.
Secondly, the rule of law is not merely an abstract concept or a legal doctrine but the constitutional condition upon which our entire democracy depends. It is not, as some ill-informed commentators like to imply, an impediment to effective government. On the contrary: it is the condition that gives government its legitimacy. At a time when democratic institutions across many countries face increasing pressure, it is more vital than ever that the people have confidence that power is being exercised lawfully, transparently and accountably. The rule of law is universal, and nobody is above the law. The Government are subject to the law, just as any citizen is—as several recent cases heard in the Supreme Court have rightly reinforced. Liberty is secured not by the exercise of power but by its restraint through the law. Let us hope that we do not have to encounter an extremist Government here in Britain. We see extremism growing elsewhere right now. Upholding the rule of law—I argue that having this debate is part of that process—is our defence against extremism. The Government cannot bully the people.
Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned in his excellent introduction to our debate, the committee considered Lord Bingham’s first principle:
“The law must be accessible … intelligible, clear and predictable”.
The report expresses concern that legislation has become increasingly lengthy, technically complex and dependent on delegated powers. We are legislators, and we have a duty to hold the Government to account to bring the laws we are making more in line with Lord Bingham’s principle.
Well over 200 years ago, the great William Pitt said that
“where law ends, there tyranny begins”.
I hope that this report and this debate go some way to drawing general attention to that universal and timeless truth.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
As the first person to speak this afternoon who can claim no part whatever in the production of this report, I independently express my view, and the views of many to whom I have spoken, on its excellence and that it needed doing and that what it said needed saying. All those who produced it deserve a great thank you. Having said that, I want to deal with one topic, partly to reinforce the strength of this report in one minute area. I will draw on what I have observed happening elsewhere in Europe, and on how steps have been taken to undermine the rule of law; we must learn from that. The central lesson we learn is that those who seek to undermine the rule of law make the judiciary the prime focus of their plans and actions.
I will give your Lordships three examples. First, you weaken public confidence, primarily through attacking judges through the media, exploiting inefficiency in the courts or delays, and attacking what might seem incautious decisions or incautious extrajudicial statements. The second is undermining the self-governance and unitary structure of the judiciary. The third is appointing compliant candidates to high judicial office and then using disciplinary proceedings and other measures to remove strong judges. These are the means that are used, of which there are readily available examples, particularly in Hungary and Poland, of what has happened in neighbouring countries in the last few years. It has all been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, subtly, and in some cases with considerable success.
Now, why should we bother to learn from elsewhere? We have our long traditions and our conventions. We have the Constitutional Reform Act; its author, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is here. So we say, “Why bother?”, but I think we should. I will look at four matters.
First, the area where we really do need action, and where the report underlines the need for action, is communications. The Judicial Office’s press office was set up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with the help of Sir Hayden Phillips, just as the Act came into existence. But there is a need to keep it up to date. The media has changed beyond all recognition and therefore I strongly endorse what is said at paragraph 123 of the report in the message it sends to government and the judiciary. The Government, it appears from paragraph 36, have got the message. I hope the judiciary will get it too, because it must appreciate that if it does not take responsibility for the way it communicates, someone else will do it for it. It is an important lesson that must be learned.
The second is the effective and timely running of the courts. Resources play an immense part in the way in which you can administer justice. But judges have a responsibility too—a responsibility from which they cannot run away. They need to put right things that are wrong or systems that do not work. Here, the Constitution Committee, maybe not in this report, but generally, has played an important role by holding judges to account for anything that has gone wrong in the courts. That holding to account is extremely beneficial because it enables the judges, in a neutral forum, as Parliament is for them, to point out what the problems are, which so often are a lack of adequate resources. Here is an important role of the Constitution Committee.
The third matter to which I wish to refer is protection against attacks on judges. The report is more than 100% correct—if there is such a concept—at paragraphs 112 to 114 in drawing attention to this. But it is important that restraint is shown by everyone concerned. The judges have to be as careful as media magnates and Cabinet Ministers should be. It is a very important principle. If there are mistakes made, you put things right quickly, as has been done so successfully by the Lady Chief Justice in recent weeks, and people can see that. Those are things where the Constitution Committee sends an important message and has an important role.
I will touch briefly on other areas where I think we should be careful. First, on appointments, the JAC is extremely important, but its role is not properly understood, and the first step of any Minister who wishes to subvert the judiciary is to get control of appointments. We need to make certain that the appointments commission is strong. Secondly, on discipline, by the system that was devised for disciplining judges, we have shielded ourselves from the accusation that people such as Mr Berlusconi could make—that the judges look after themselves. But the operation of the system needs careful monitoring. The third is self-governance of the judiciary. I strongly welcome what is in the Bill, which I hope will be taken forward at least in this respect, to bring together the courts and the tribunals. It is important that the judiciary is unified.
What conclusion should we draw as to the role of the Constitution Committee? I hope it can, over the years, keep an eye on the examples we see elsewhere and on the matters on which we need to keep an eye. It is very important that, when the heads of the judiciary and Ministers come, a health check is made of each of the aspects that safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Perhaps I could persuade the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his successors to take up this role, because vigilance, as has been said so strongly, is absolutely essential. We need not merely to say it, we need a mechanism, and that mechanism should be the Constitution Committee.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the matters we debate today are both sombre and urgent. They are sombre because, as the committee’s report highlights, the challenges faced by the rule of law in contemporary society are very grave. To give only one example, the then Lord Chancellor said in evidence to us that the justice system
“is not worthy of the name ‘justice’”—
surely a breathtaking condemnation of the present state of affairs. They are urgent not least because the evidence to the committee suggested widespread public disillusion with the surely basic idea that the laws that protect us all will actually be enforced and evenly applied.
Today I will highlight the rule of law as experienced by the ordinary citizen in daily life. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to whose chairmanship I pay my personal tribute, has indicated, the “rule of law” as a phrase does not just mean protection against the arbitrary power of the state, vital though that is; it is essential to the everyday functioning of a peaceful and orderly society. Every citizen is expected to obey the law, and the counterpart—the compact, the bargain, that underpins the whole of society—is that those who do not obey the law must be held to account. But, as others have said, if that does not happen and laws can be broken with impunity, public confidence in the very idea of a society governed by the rule of law is weakened, leading ultimately to the anarchy referred to in the title of the committee’s report.
As the committee highlighted, the widespread public perception that laws against, for example, shop theft, car theft, phone theft, house burglary and fare dodging are broken with impunity is a major, insidious and, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, gradual threat to the rule of law. One could add, for example, fly-tipping, the pollution of the rivers, dodgy vape shops, online fraud, and so on, not to mention the daily spectacle of people smugglers operating with apparent impunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, rightly emphasised.
Even more important is the principle that the law must be enforced equally and fairly. If the law is perceived to be enforced unequally, that compounds the problem. In particular, as the committee points out, perceptions of bias and discrimination within the police, even if unfounded in fact, corrode public confidence in the rule of law. If we add to these matters the delays in the criminal courts, the delays in the civil justice system and the numerous difficulties of access to justice summarised in chapter 6 of the committee’s report, one can understand the current disillusion of the general public with law enforcement and the effectiveness of our legal system.
I am reminded of those opening scenes in “Measure for Measure”, when, in ancient Vienna, law and order has broken down and, in Shakespeare’s words,
“liberty plucks justice by the nose”.
Angelo is sent by the Duke to restore order, and he cries:
“We must not make a scarecrow of the law”.
It is a vivid image of a legal system that is allowed to become tattered, lopsided and ineffective.
We are not yet, thankfully, at that point. I certainly agree with the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Waldegrave, and others, that our system is not broken. But one cannot thrust under the carpet or ignore some of the matters and threats which I have mentioned. In these circumstances, all those in politics and public life should treat the threats to the rule of law that are the subject of this debate with the utmost seriousness. Politically, justice and the rule of law have all too often been an afterthought, coming behind health, welfare, education and so on. But, in truth, the rule of law is the keystone on which everything else depends. Nurturing and protecting that keystone is a matter of the highest importance, not only morally but politically.
Earlier today, as others have already said most movingly, we paid tribute to the life of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who embodied in his office of Lord Chancellor and in his person the authority and dignity of the rule of law. Let us try to live up to the example of Lord Mackay and once again place the rule of law, a healthy justice system, fair and effective law enforcement and access to justice at the core and centre of our public life, with all the resources and attention to excellence that is required. Let us never make a scarecrow of the law.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the second Member speaking today who did not contribute to this excellent report, I also commend the Constitution Committee. It focuses on the common ground that we have on the rule of law and on practical challenges. I will pick out a few themes.
First, the committee rightly says that judicial review should not be presented as a blocker to government action. The Government, in their response last February, accepted that but pointed out quite fairly that judicial review can cause delays to government projects. They referred to changes they were considering to increase efficiency and certainty. Can the Minister update the House on those plans? This might be quite urgent, because the latest Ministry of Justice figures show some positive trends in the length of civil proceedings—the Government must be commended for that—but also reveal a dramatic increase in judicial review applications in the first quarter of 2026. There were around 1,300 new applications in that quarter, up 98% on the same quarter of 2025, and there was also an increase throughout 2025. Can the Minister tell us more about the reasons for this increase and what the Government are doing to ensure that the courts can cope?
Secondly, as we heard before, attacks on judges undermine the rule of law. The same is true also of attacks on practising lawyers. I am afraid that no political side is immune from those. From one side, there have been attacks on lawyers acting for wealthy clients or sanctioned individuals and, from the other side, there have been attacks on lawyers acting for asylum seekers. All these attacks violate the same basic principle: lawyers should not be associated with their clients. Of course, if there are serious allegations of malpractice, they should be investigated thoroughly and promptly.
There is perhaps another reason why public trust in the profession has been undermined, which has to do with how lawyers engage with the media and on social media. When I was called to the Bar, there were very strict rules on media engagement. We were prohibited from expressing personal opinions to the press in cases in which we were involved and any public commentary that we offered as barristers had to be objective and fair minded. The purpose of these rules was to reassure the public about the independence of the Bar. I am afraid we now see some advocates thinking of advocacy in the American sense, where it means campaigning. In our tradition, the two are not the same; an advocate is not a public campaigner and advocates must maintain their independence. Our right not to be associated with our clients carries a corresponding responsibility, which is to keep a distance from our clients and not to become too closely identifiable with them.
It is also wrong and risks discrediting the legal profession in the eyes of the public for lawyers to describe some legal work—for example, acting for claimants against the Government—as inherently more valuable than other legal work, such as representing the Government in defending those claims. We cannot look to the Government for answers to these challenges because, as the Government say in their response, ethical standards are ultimately a matter for the independent regulators. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, this is not just about rules or guidelines but about a culture that we are trying to defend. It falls on practising lawyers—many of us speaking today are lawyers—to ensure that standards in that culture do not slip.
The third area I will address briefly is the positive uses of artificial intelligence. One recommendation in the report is that short summaries of judgments be produced in as many cases as possible. This is already the practice of the Supreme Court and a number of other courts do it in high-profile cases. Producing an accurate summary is quite resource intensive. However, high-quality AI summaries can be produced more widely, for example through the “Find Case Law” platform at the National Archives, and some commercial legal databases already do something similar. Does the ministry have any plans in this area? I was pleased to read in the Government’s response about the positive feedback on the new AI capability for generating Keeling schedules. Are there plans to expand the system so that all of us involved in scrutinising legislation can use that kind of facility regularly? Legislative scrutiny is key to the rule of law. We all perform that function here, but we need the help of these very practical tools for assessing legislation quickly.
Finally, there was one footnote in the report with which I disagreed. It stated that some evidence before the committee was sympathetic to including international law within the rule of law, while other evidence, apparently including from myself, advocated the contrary position. That is not quite my position. I agree with everything the report says about our obligation to comply with international law, whether treaties or customary international law, but the question of whether international law in its present state satisfies the conditions of the rule of law is a much more complex one.
I refer to the excellent foreword by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, to a recent Policy Exchange report in which he says that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change and the litigation that it may pave the way for risks undermining the legitimacy of international law and the rule of law. Indeed, a recent study has revealed that a very reliable predictor of how ICJ judges will vote in a given case is how their home states vote in the UN General Assembly. Imagine if it could be shown in a domestic court that judges’ decisions could be predicted based on where they come from. We would have a rule of law problem.
We must comply with international obligations, support these institutions and continue to promote the international rule of law, but we have to understand that this remains an intensely political environment. The international legal order is still very much a work in progress and, like much work in progress, it can be set back by an excess of zeal.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate. I was not a member of the committee—in fact, I have always wanted to be a member of the committee, so I hope my remarks will not rule me out from consideration in future—but I applaud the report and the speech of the noble Lord introducing it. Incidentally, I pay my own tribute to Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was widely admired in the household in which I grew up.
We are rightly proud of our legal heritage. As a matter of fact, earlier this afternoon we had a debate about the UK’s role in the space economy, and one of the aspects—–Members may not realise—is that, looking ahead, we very much hope that the UK can be a centre for international arbitration and the regulation of space, which is going to become more and more important.
I will direct my few remarks to that part of the report that deals with Parliament and its role in making the law. I was brought up to believe in the supremacy of the House of Commons and parliamentary sovereignty, but I am bound to say that my first visit to the Royal Courts of Justice gave me a very different view of the law. Given the eminence of the legal Members of the House here, I hope they will not mind if I say that my memory is of going to the Royal Courts of Justice with my dad, who had been elected for the fourth time as the Member for Bristol South East and was refused entry to the House of Commons—the only Member in the 20th century to be refused entry, having been elected. In the course of the judgment before an Election Court, which consists of two judges, it was held that the ruling of Mr Justice Dodderidge in 1626 took precedence over the electors of Bristol South East in electing their Member of Parliament. Noble Lords will appreciate that that shaped my view of the law to some extent.
The story of country and Parliament, and power in this country, over the last few hundred years has been one of progress and change from the power of the monarch to the power of Parliament, and now the power of a Prime Minister who exercises so many of the powers that a monarch used to hold and does so in his name. I would argue that the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature has changed, and to the disadvantage of the legislature. This is illustrated by that part of the report which deals with the issue of delegated legislation. It is true that you cannot do everything in primary legislation, but that is not to say that secondary legislation receives the scrutiny that it should. Our inability, in effect, to reject secondary legislation, much less to amend it, is eroding, and could erode in the longer term, some element of respect for the rule of law because Parliament itself is unable sufficiently to exercise control over it.
A few years ago, we had a debate in this House promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, about the use of skeleton Bills. It was a very interesting debate and I recommend it to anyone. It is true that, over time—I do not blame any one Government for it at all; I am happy to blame them all—the temptation has been to introduce legislation that enables Ministers in particular to have greater powers exercised through secondary legislation. Mention was made of the fact that change can sometimes be slow, but there is a pressure cooker building up here and I cannot predict when it may burst. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could address this.
The report lists 11 questions that the Constitution Committee applies when looking at Bills before giving its view, and they are all very good questions. I end by asking my noble friend the Minister whether she could give what I would call an honest assessment of the extent to which these questions are in fact considered by the Government in producing Bills. This House would like to feel that the Government are taking seriously the need for Parliament to be as effective as possible in its scrutiny and to have them exercised accordingly.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
One of the key findings of this excellent report is summarised as follows:
“Public confidence in the judiciary is vital for trust in the fair administration of justice. This requires that judges make decisions independently of bias and external influence, and that they are perceived to do so. However, the committee stated confidence was being increasingly challenged by political rhetoric that criticised the judiciary, and this was being amplified on social media”.
This is the aspect of the report I would like to talk about today: what is legitimate and illegitimate criticism of the judiciary, particularly the senior judiciary?
In chapter 4 of the report, in the section headed “Attacks on judges and the judiciary”, it rightly says that:
“The judiciary, as with any other state institution, should not be immune from scrutiny or criticism”.
The report goes on to say that, while attacks on judgments are fair game, attacks on judges are not. It particularly condemns attacks that claim a decision is based on a judge’s political views or bias. The Lady Chief Justice is quoted in the report as singling out
“newspaper articles about ‘outrageous judicial overreach’”,
and those which used the words “lefty” and “liberal”, and described decisions as “crazy”. The implication is that such attacks, which attribute political bias to judges, originate for the most part with the populist right, not the left. Frances Gibb is quoted in the report, as saying that, every so often,
“‘you get an eruption—often in the tabloid press—against judges’”.
However, it scarcely needs pointing that such attacks come from both sides of the political divide. I am thinking in particular of the attacks on the Supreme Court for the decision it made in the For Women Scotland case. Maggie Chapman, a Green MSP, who was the deputy convenor of Holyrood’s equalities committee at the time, accused the Supreme Court justices of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”. We heard similar criticisms, if not quite so extreme, from Stonewall, Consortium LGBT and the Good Law Project. More recently, following this week’s judgment in the case against Associated Newspapers, the Duke of Sussex and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, issued a joint statement attacking Justice Nicklin and accusing him of a “complete and obvious whitewash”, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, pointed out.
I share the report’s view that, if the public are to maintain confidence in judges and the judiciary, there should be no perception of political bias. However, are such accusations always based, in the words of the report, on
“inappropriate, and often inaccurate, public criticism by politicians and journalists”
based on misinformation? Last year, Robert Jenrick MP, then the shadow Justice Minister, pointed out that over 30 immigration judges have links to open borders charities. He pointed out that one serving judge openly celebrated on social media the defeat of the last Government’s Rwanda plan. Surely this activity has played a part—perhaps a small one, but a part none the less—in the perception of bias in the decisions of the Upper Tribunal.
More pernicious are the requirements, as part of the process for selecting members of the senior judiciary, that applicants affirm their support for diversity and inclusion. In the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework, against which the Judicial Appointments Commission assesses applicants, one of the effective working criteria is:
“Takes an inclusive approach to those with differences from themselves … Is able and willing to challenge inappropriate behaviour by others”.
Under leadership skills, it says applicants are expected to:
“Ensure an inclusive culture for all, irrespective of background”.
I am sure most noble Lords do not regard such requirements as political, but I remind them that Reform UK, for all its recent setbacks, is still leading in the polls. I suspect that many supporters of that party would regard these criteria as political. Do we not want supporters of right-wing parties to have confidence in judges and the judiciary?
The commitment that applicants for Silk are required to make is stronger still. The KC Competency Framework has five competencies. Competency D—
“Diversity action and understanding”—
requires that an applicant:
“Demonstrates an understanding of diversity and cultural issues, respects the needs and cultural wishes of others and is proactive in addressing the needs of people from all backgrounds”.
The indicators include:
“Takes positive action to promote diversity and equality of opportunity … Confronts discrimination and prejudice when observed in others; does not let it pass unchecked … Acts as a role model for others in handling diversity and cultural issues.
Is there not a risk that these requirements will contribute to the perception of bias, whether accurate or not? Take the requirement that applicants for Silk must take positive action to promote diversity. To some, that will sound like code for “take positive action to promote people who are not white men”.
The requirement to respect
“the needs and cultural wishes of others”
is, I submit, something of an ideological litmus test, requiring those wishing to take Silk to affirm their alignment with the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. Note: it asks applicants not simply to tolerate the cultural wishes of others—which may be a wish that women should cover their heads—but to respect them.
It is worth bearing in mind that the latest batch of High Court appointments all took Silk before they were appointed. They all passed this ideological litmus test. Is it not wanting to have your cake and eat it to, on the one hand, insist that members of the senior judiciary should affirm their commitment to EDI at various points as they clamber the judicial pyramid—a contested ideology, I think it is fair to say—and, on the other, condemn journalists and politicians for launching political attacks on senior judges?
In 2024 the Bar Standards Board consulted about introducing a new duty to promote EDI in its code of conduct. That was rightly condemned by a broad coalition within the legal profession, including the Law Society. Surely the same requirement has no more place in the KC Competency Framework than it does in the BSB’s code of conduct. I was, I am afraid, disappointed that the report did not recommend its removal from the KC framework as well as its removal from the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework.
I share the concerns of the report that critics of judges, and the senior judiciary in particular, should play the ball and not the man, but if we want to achieve that ambition, we have to stop insisting that the man affirm his commitment to a politically contested ideology.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
My Lords, I echo other non-contributors who have expressed appreciation of the outstanding report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his committee. I thank them for the very substantial work that clearly went into it. The wide scope of the rule of law, and the multifarious topics it covers, were well illustrated by the excellent speeches that preceded this one. I agreed with virtually all that was said—“virtually” being a cautious lawyer’s word in these circumstances.
The rule of law is not only an essential ingredient; it may be the most important ingredient of a civilised, just and peaceful society. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned in his speech, of serious economic value to people. The 2024 Nobel Prize was awarded to three economists who demonstrated that the rule of law and sound institutions are fundamental to sustained long-term growth. This is supported by a 2015 survey of more than 300 large international companies carried out by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, of which I have the honour of being president, and the Economist Intelligence Unit. The survey established that the rule of law was the third most important factor in deciding where to invest, behind the ease of doing business and a stable political environment—and both of those are strongly influenced by the rule of law.
However, the rule of law is as potentially precarious as it is precious. Thus, it is not something that has much traction with the average citizen. Ask him or her, “Which is more important—that the UK retains the rule of law or that England win the World Cup?”, and I fear that the latter might be the runaway winner. Particularly in a democracy, what the average citizen thinks is pretty important. We need to explain to people, above all the young—as a number of people here, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, have emphasised—why the rule of law matters and what it can do for them. As the committee rightly records:
“Public legal education is a key enabler of a rule of law culture”.
Education in this context should concentrate not on high-falutin’ principles but on practicalities that non-lawyers care about. But education is a longish-term project, and we have to face the fact that, with a general election no more than three years away, we may be in a precarious situation.
The precariousness is all the greater under the UK’s unique constitutional arrangements. Unlike almost every other country, we have no codified, overriding constitution; instead, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said, we have parliamentary supremacy, which means that Parliament—in practice, the other place—can do what it wants. Any safeguard, whether statutory, judge-made or founded on convention, could be swept away in an afternoon by a simple majority of constitutionally challenged parliamentarians.
We do not have separation of powers. A Prime Minister and a Cabinet can often get Members of the other place to vote the way they want, which reinforces the precariousness. If an illiberal Government ever commanded a majority, remarkably little—by way of checks—stands in their way. If the rule of law can be trampled on by the head of the Executive in a country such as the United States, with its overriding constitution and its separation of powers, how much easier would it be to trample on the rule of law in this country? The flexible constitution that has served us so well for over three centuries may also contain the seeds of its own destruction.
I mentioned the relative absence of checks on the Executive. One such check is the Human Rights Act, a topic on which this report, otherwise very thorough, is strangely quiet. In a country without overriding constitutional principles, the existence of a statutory document that enshrines fundamental individual rights is essential for the rule of law. The indirect incorporation of the European convention into our law by the cleverly drafted statute ensures that fundamental rights are enshrined in our domestic law and can be reinforced by the courts but without impugning or impinging on parliamentary supremacy.
Although I do not agree with every Strasbourg court judgment and I believe that the convention could do with some overhauling, I am very much against withdrawing from the convention. If we decided to join Russia and Belarus in being the only European countries outside the convention, we would be undermining the rule of law in the UK if we did not have, as we withdrew, an equivalent set of human rights involving similarly effective, constitutionally appropriate judicial powers.
Talking of judges, I do not have much to add to what has been said by previous speakers, but it is essential that we maintain the independence of the judiciary at all levels and in all ways. As the US experience has again shown us, it is essential that we keep party politics away from the judiciary and the judiciary away from party politics. Judges have no democratic legitimacy and should be appropriately cautious about stepping into policy issues. Sometimes they are called to do so—as with the two Miller cases where they had to face a dispute between the Executive and the legislature. Apart from in such cases, they should keep out of political issues.
I have little to add to what has been said, apart from adding my fond memories of Lord Mackay of Clashfern. If ever anyone stood for the rule of law in an acceptable, coherent and attractive way, it was him. It is appropriate that we are having this debate in the week when he sadly died.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I have too little personal experience of Lord Mackay to be able to say anything substantial. But as a former church leader speaking to him as a wee free, we had animated and friendly conversation on more than one issue. At that level and in those terms, I add my own expression of admiration for, and enjoyment of the memory of, Lord Mackay.
I am a member of the Constitution Committee, the fourth to speak in this debate. We are restoring the focus. For a report of this kind to have generated a debate of this kind, with this divergence of views, is a tribute to the report. I thank all those who have spoken. I said in my membership of the committee that I am not from a political background; others around the table were. I am not from a legal background; others around the table were. So I must be vox populi—except that I had the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who never hesitates to be the vox populi himself. It has been, for me, a learning experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, talked about being a member of a committee where she had as much to learn as to contribute, and I certainly feel that way myself. Indeed, I felt it was like a prolonged seminar. I remember signing up for a lengthy seminar series on 14th-century Icelandic literature in 1962. I felt then as I feel now: that the learning I acquired in the course of that has equipped me for life in all its shades and colours.
It has been a privilege to be part of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I thought seriously about adjectives for him: “genial” is one and “skilful” is another; the third, he will have to wait for when we cross in the corridors. The learning and experience around the table, the opportunity to have breakfast with the judges of the Supreme Court—things such as that have registered in my memory. They have made me, as an ordinary member of the public, far more aware of these luminaries who appear in the press, who have now become personalised by those simple events.
In contributing to this debate, I do not want to add to any of the substantive things that have been said about judges, for example. I want to fix my attention on solicitors. The Law Society sent us a briefing. It said that, in general, this is a pretty good report, but there was one point at which it raised a question that I will lay before Members now. We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, a moment ago about the extent to which we ought to listen to and interpret things that come out of Strasbourg. I am a member of the delegation that goes from this Parliament to Strasbourg, to the Council of Europe. Just over a year ago, it produced the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, or, in short, the Luxembourg convention. It was aware that across Europe—and we are not immune in this country—lawyers, solicitors, are on the front line facing people’s opinions, violence and abuse when things happen such as the 2024 riots in the north of England after the dreadful tragedy there.
Lawyers are reporting in greater and greater numbers that they are being subject to the same kind of popular, violent and abusive comments as judges. So we must think about them. I ask His Majesty’s Government and my noble friend the Minister, why, if we could sign the convention a year ago when it was produced in Strasbourg, we have not yet ratified it. Until we ratify it and take it into our own system, the solicitors it seeks to defend will not have the defences they are looking for in the protocol.
Finally, I turn to something rather more personal, and I make no apologies for it. It is a little story from my own life, but it is an elephant in the room that I feel I must bring into the debate. I mentioned it when we were with the judges, my friends—I consider them to be that—from the Supreme Court. I just love working in a cross-party group: it is marvellous, when we are so party-oriented, to have that opportunity, so I mentioned it there too.
My first memory of a court, unlike my noble friend Lord Stansgate, was not the Royal Courts of Justice; it was Llanelli Magistrates Court. It was way back in 1947, when I was five years of age. I was on one side of a big mahogany door—that is what registered in my memory—on the other side of which my parents were fighting out their marriage. A divorce ensued, and my mother brought us up—just the two boys—in one simple room for the rest of our life there. But I do not tell this story to invoke tears, pathos or anything like that. It is simply that, when my mother died—and I am going back home in a month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of her death—her estate amounted to one cardboard box of documents. One of those documents, which I had never seen before, was from my father’s solicitor. It indicated that, since his client had proved to the satisfaction of the court that my mother was the guilty party, he was writing to tell us that we—my mother and her two boys—must get out of the family home within a fortnight. That shaped and coloured the rest of my life.
I tell this tale for a simple reason. We heard about access to justice in the second speech; access to justice is one thing, but fairness for the people involved in that justice is another. Money enters into things at that stage. My father could afford a lawyer and my mother could not. She was the guilty party, and she was therefore obliged to raise two boys in abject penury during their formative years.
Let us look at these things in the round. Let us offer solicitors the protection they want, but never forget that glib phrases such as “access to justice” need to be quantified and measurable.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am not a member of the Constitution Committee, but I was its first chair. I welcome the committee’s excellent report and endorse all the recommendations it makes. As I shall argue, it deserves a wide audience.
The committee provides a first-class analysis of the meaning of the rule of law. It is a concept that is core to liberal democracy. As the committee recognises, the basis of it predates the development of democracy by centuries; it is at the heart of the liberal part of the phrase. It can be traced back to the origins of the English polity and, I would argue, is recognisable in the coronation oath of the 10th century.
As the report recognises, in essence, there are two problems in upholding the rule of law: one is in the failings of the institutions of the state to ensure that it is upheld and, crucially, seen to be upheld; the other is a public lack of knowledge not so much of the core concept but of its centrality and the means by which it is upheld. The failure of public institutions to uphold the rule of law, be it through partiality or inadequate resources, gives succour to those who seek to undermine confidence in the British political system. This is exacerbated by the nature of social media and AI.
Two weeks ago, we debated the challenges posed to our system of government by disinformation, not least disinformation disseminated by bodies opposed to our way of life. Disinformation is a major challenge to a democratic polity. People now have short attention spans and often do not bother to interrogate the credentials of those posting claims online. We are generating a gullible society; the long-term implications are horrendous.
I argued then that the response needed to be not only reactive, countering disinformation, but proactive, ensuring that we have a population that understands and appreciates the value of our system of government—not just the way it operates but the values that underpin it.
As the report argues, we need to ensure that all those who are engaged in upholding the rule of law—the courts, the police, Parliament and other public bodies—do so and are seen to do so. We need to address both the resources, not least the physical resources, and the personnel, ensuring that those who are engaged in public life are appropriately trained, fully understand their task and are well led.
In terms of policing, I very much welcome the report of the Police Leadership Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Herbert and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. We need to ensure that the courts and Parliament do their job effectively and that each understands and respects the position of the other. The relationship should be one of democratic dialogue, not one of competing authority.
However, the key point I wish to make this afternoon is that these changes, while necessary, are by no means sufficient. Here, I follow the comments of my noble friend Lady Laing. The report concludes by stressing the need for public legal education. That needs putting within the broader remit of citizenship education. Ensuring that citizenship education is embedded in our education system is crucial for the well-being of the British polity. As I said in the debate on disinformation, we are in reactive mode in dealing with disinformation by malign agencies, but we must be proactive in ensuring that we have an informed population, understanding not just how the system works but why it matters to everyone. Citizenship education is an essential tool in restoring public trust in our institutions. That trust is undermined by how some public servants behave, but also by ignorance and a willingness to believe false claims spread through social media.
I welcome what the Government have announced about citizenship provision for 2028, and I welcome the resources provided by Oak National Academy, but the key point is ensuring not just that those resources are available but that schools have the ability—and the incentive—to teach it effectively. It needs to be taught by trained citizenship teachers, not teachers drafted in from other subjects. It needs to contribute to league tables. No school should be rated as outstanding or good unless it is delivering citizenship to the highest standard.
Citizenship education needs to extend beyond schools. It needs embedding in the wider society. We should be ensuring that what is in this excellent report, or at least a summary, reaches far and wide, to civic bodies and basically any organisation that draws people together. It should be required reading for anyone applying for citizenship. More challengingly, we must reach those who do not usually engage in civic activities. In many respects, those are the people we most need to reach.
This report deserves more than simply being debated in this House and then left to gather dust. We need to take it as a manifesto for action. The Government need to act on it. We have the government response to the report, which is welcome, containing as it does a series of actions to address the first problem I mentioned, though not addressing it holistically, and addressing the second, not quite as an afterthought, but in four short paragraphs at the end. The key issue is to recognise the sheer importance of problems to the health of our political system. There needs to be more joined-up thinking from the top, treating the issue for what it is: a national crisis.
Lord Moraes (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton. This is one of those places—probably the only place—where you follow a speaker who was actually on your reading list for constitutional and administrative law. I do not know why I feel the need to say that I passed—no distinction, by the way, but I did pass. I know that the noble Lord was a very young professor, writing at a very early time—certainly when he appeared on my list.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talked about how this report was put together. I must be speaker number eight or nine who is not on the committee, but I am willing to see how valuable the report is because it does something very difficult, which is to look at the thin and thick concepts of the rule of law. On the one hand is the profound idea of what the rule of law is at the highest level, the Bingham level, and on the other there is the day-to-day stuff that people have to deal with, and which my noble friend the Minister has to deal with in her department: delays, access to justice, access to legal aid where it is available—the nitty-gritty stuff that people have to deal with, and have had to deal with for a long time, but now it becomes more acute and difficult. The report brings together both these things, and noble Lords have spoken eloquently about it.
So much has been covered. I will alight on one experience of mine that might contextualise what is happening here in the UK, to give some perspective. In the 2010s I was chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the European Parliament. I know that sounds very boring. Unfortunately, under the treaties it gives you formal powers, along with the Commission and the Council, to investigate rule-of-law breaches, or alleged such breaches. Again, that sounds fairly mild, but there is nothing mild about it. It required months of going to countries such as Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and, yes, even Malta, where there were genuine rule-of-law crises. Under the treaties there was an obligation to address and investigate those crises.
I want to give the House an idea of what the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, mentioned about saying that our system is broken and comparing it with what is happening in some countries. He did us a favour, by the way, by saying that up front. When you visit those countries, you find that there is a deep anxiety, even among those who support the Government, who may be moving to a more autocratic position. That is an important point because it speaks to the independence of judges from party politics, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, mentioned. Independence is not a perfect state for judges in Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. By the way, in Slovakia it was a centre left Government who were in crisis, so it is not all about party politics and the right or whatever.
In Poland I talked to judges, lawyers, community groups, businesspeople—anyone who was interested. Article 7 of the treaty was first invoked because of the crisis of the rule of law in Poland, which today is much repaired. They said, “Look, we feel very anxious about this”. Why? It was because the older generation had emerged from communist states where there was no independence. State judges, state police and state institutions are the very opposite of independence. So even those who wanted to move in a more autocratic direction were deeply anxious. For the younger generation, as both the report and the Government’s response have said, the rule of law is a live issue. It is about the economic health of the country, not just cultural and identity issues. They believe that, when their country is looked at in a certain way, it inhibits investment in, and a certain image of, their country. That is also important, and I saw it when I was in those countries.
We went to countries such as Slovakia, where there was a rule-of-law crisis because of widespread allegations of government corruption, corruption among judges, and so on. Investigative journalists were murdered when they were investigating it; it is real stuff. When you examine what is going on, you find that people often mention Lord Bingham and the Bingham Centre, and what they want and respect is a model that is about independence. They do not believe that would be perfect, and this speaks to the point about whether or not judges are party political, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said. They want judges to be as independent as they can be—they are human beings, after all—but the issue is not to be overtly party political in their systems. That is the point, and that is all they were asking for.
In Poland, they did not want a set of judges who were pro the Government at that point to be replaced by a set of judges who were pro the opposition. No, they wanted judges who were as independent and as objective as possible. That would restore the rule of law, and it would affect the enforcement elements of the rule of law, the police and all those agencies that had been a real nightmare under communism—these were now post-communist states. Those were the lessons I learned, and they contextualise what is happening here.
To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, said about everything being broken, there are clearly issues that my noble friend has to deal with—delays, legal aid and all sorts of other issues. These days, the Ministry of Justice is not an easy department in this context. It has to fight for resources.
The rule of law is not some nebulous, abstract concept. I spoke to my son before this debate. I should not do this, because he has just finished his GCSEs and he really does not want me to talk about what I am doing in the House of Lords. I said to him, “You’re 16, you’ve just finished your GCSEs. What is the rule of law? What does it mean to you?” I regretted asking, because I thought he would just not answer. But he did: “Oh, it’s an idea”, and then he paused, as teenagers do, and said, “It’s rules”. Then he paused again and said, “In our country, we’re good at them”. I thought this was really interesting. In every country I visited where the rule of law mechanism was under attack, people cited the United Kingdom as having a robust set of institutions. There are some problems, but they can be corrected. This report, in my opinion, really contributes to that journey.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to our much-loved noble friend, the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the powerful call to action that he and his committee have produced in this report.
Naturally I agree with my former tutor and noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this is a major report, not just in terms of its 93 pages and almost 30 recommendations but in its significance. It does, as noble Lords and my noble friend have said, deserve a wide audience. In the few minutes allocated, I will focus on the conclusions and recommendations that relate to a section of society all too often regarded as insignificant. This is absolutely not a criticism of the report, but it underlines my point because, as far as I can see, disabled people did not figure in it at all. I am not suggesting that there should be some tokenistic checklist of protected characteristic groups who must always be mentioned, regardless of the subject matter. Rather, I would suggest that many disabled people’s life experiences would actually support some of the report’s observations, conclusions and recommendations.
I will focus my remarks on paragraphs 26, 49 and 50 in particular. With regards to paragraph 26 and the role everyone has to play in upholding the rule of law and the importance of our understanding
“what a society that displays the rule of law looks like in practice”,
paragraph 49 hits the nail on the head. It states that it is about the value system that underpins the rule of law. It is surely sadly right that, as the report argues, if the core values of equality, fairness and justice
“are not present (or are perceived not to be present) in our society, then the rule of law … is liable to be degraded and to break down”.
I give one pertinent example of a wheelchair user, dressed in a suit and tie, who was wheeling across Parliament Square only last month. Three teenage lads passed by; each laughed at him in turn, and one was heard to say to the other two, “Have you seen that video?”—shocking perhaps, but not unusual for this individual and, I would suggest, for many disabled people whose disability makes them look different. What was clear in that moment was that these young people had absolutely no concept of the values of respect, equality and fairness that inform the rule of law culture. Indeed, such concepts might just as well have been so abstract as to be completely alien to their thinking.
That is how far we have regressed as a society in the 31 years since your Lordships’ House passed the Disability Discrimination Act. That is how much the rule of law culture has been degraded, undoubtedly aided by the subversive subculture of ridicule and hatred spawned by social media, whose role in misinformation is highlighted in paragraph 117. Social media seemingly grants a licence to laugh at and, in some cases, to dehumanise other human beings on account of their difference. Being a Peer of the realm affords no protection from prejudice. I know because I was the wheelchair user being laughed at.
I also relate, as someone with a mobility impairment, to paragraph 50 and how confidence in the rule of law is challenged by perceptions of disrespect for the law, particularly when this is seen within those institutions that play a role in upholding the rule of law, such as law enforcement. I know I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who must wonder why on earth the police, for whom I have the greatest respect, are failing to enforce the law with regard to cyclists going through red lights and cycling on pavements, both of which pose an enormous risk to disabled people and non-disabled people and both of which are illegal. It would only take an inexpensive, well-publicised social media campaign, backed up with real penalties, rather than just warnings, being awarded to law-breaking cyclists, including those using e-bikes, for the public to get the message: this is the rule of law on the roads, enforced by those with responsibility to uphold it—the police. You have absolutely nothing to fear as long as you do not break it.
In conclusion, the judiciary is quite rightly at the apex of society; it deserves our respect. But surely an equally crucial indicator of how much the rule of law is respected in practice is the degree to which it, and the culture and value system underpinning it, are upheld in situations affecting the most vulnerable members of society, not those with the most power. The report may not mention disabled people specifically, but that does not make its conclusions and recommendations any less relevant or important. I thank the Constitution Committee for its work and hope very much that the Minister will show in her reply that the Government are determined to respond positively in practice.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in this debate. In a world where so-called “strong men” are ruling with tyranny and anarchy around the globe, in total disregard of the rules-based international order, we should consider ourselves hugely fortunate to live in a country where compliance with the rule of law is still considered important. The Constitution Committee’s report is an invaluable reminder of the central part the rule of law plays, or should play, in the way our constitution works in practice.
Because the rule of law is so critical, and compliance—or non-compliance—with it has consequences for all of us, I am going to start at the very end of the committee’s report, which recommends a “huge improvement” in the way it is taught as part of citizenship education. That point has already been made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I am not going to repeat the points that they have made, albeit that was the first part of my speech—that is one of the hazards of coming towards the end of the pecking order.
I should declare an interest, since my Private Members’ Bill would require citizenship to be taught by trained teachers at all the key stages of the national curriculum. I will elaborate on why citizenship education is so important. Engaging our young people with the constitution will help to combat their apathy towards politics and politicians—a point that I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made earlier. Recent surveys reveal that they feel deeply disconnected from the political establishment, and that some are even disillusioned with democracy itself, feeling that politicians largely ignore their needs. Perhaps this explains why only 37% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted in the last general election.
Part of the problem is that, as ONS statistics show, there is a low level of trust in the political parties. This carries the danger that our young people will be drawn to a more authoritarian system and to populism, as is happening in countries such as the USA, the Netherlands and Germany, among others. This was the warning from the noble Baroness, Lady May, in her memorable Lord Speaker’s Lecture last year. One reason why there is scepticism about the political establishment is that parties do not keep the promises they make. As Lord Bingham said in his definition of the rule of law—which was quoted by the committee—Ministers, in whatever party, must exercise their powers for the purpose for which they are conferred. To my mind, that includes not just the well-known Padfield principle in public law but keeping faith with undertakings. Breaking promises undermines our democracy and leads to the political turmoil we have seen over the last 10 years, where the only stable thing in No. 10 has been Larry the cat.
There are many examples over both Conservative and Labour Administrations, but I want to point to Henry VIII clauses. Shortly after Labour came into office, we were told by the Attorney-General, in an impressive Bingham Lecture on the rule of law, that there was a need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation and the use of Henry VIII powers, since it raises real questions about how we are governed and therefore affects each and every one of us on a daily basis. We were told the Government would lead by example, yet—through no fault of the Attorney-General—Henry VIII clauses are “increasingly being … used” by departments
“to make policy that should more appropriately be made by primary legislation”—
the committee’s words, not mine. Governments, of any colour, who fail to deliver on what they have said undermine trust in our democracy, which is inextricably linked to the rule of law.
As we know, Henry VIII clauses can be used to amend primary legislation, but, like all SIs, they are subject to significantly less scrutiny than primary legislation. As we know, they cannot be amended but only struck down—but when was the last time any SI was rejected?
One is spoilt for choice in terms of recent examples of Henry VIII powers, but just look at those which apply by virtue of Section 54 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. These are Henry VIII powers that are well concealed in other legislation by being applied via the back door of Section 54 to a vast array of new statutory provisions by virtue of amendments to that other legislation. Legislation should be clear and accessible, as we have heard.
This brings me to my last point, which is that legislation is difficult to navigate, even for lawyers, let alone laypeople. The fact that many Acts of Parliament consist largely of amendments to previous legislation makes the task doubly difficult. The recent Representation of the People Bill is a classic example of a Bill heaping yet more complexity on to an already hugely complex Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Again, the Constitution Committee has said that legislation should be clear and accessible.
To conclude where I started, we need to engage our young people with our precious constitution, combat some of their apathy towards politics and politicians, restore public trust in our political leaders and make the legislative process clearer and more accessible. All this would help enhance interest among our young people in citizenship issues, including the rule of law, and help create the political leaders of the future.
Lord Blackwater (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, but it is alarming that respect for the rule of law, once unquestioned, should be increasingly fragile, and that this vital requirement of our ordered and free society is under threat. If belief in the rule of law is eroded, that society becomes less free and less ordered, endangering us all.
This thoughtful report—and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and his committee on their work, and him on his excellent speech introducing this debate—mentions the most egregious problems. They are summed up by what has been perceived as “two-tier justice”. There is much debate to be had about whether those perceptions—of the police as enforcers of our laws, and of the judiciary, who dispense justice—are real or illusions. The report mentions crimes far too familiar, such as mobile phone theft, Rolex rippers and the epidemic of shoplifting, which appear to continue with general impunity. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shinkwin mentioned that posse of cyclists around England, not just in London, who seem to think the rules of the road do not apply to them.
The “tyranny” in the subtitle of the report may, for the moment, be hyperbole, but the “anarchy” is brewing nicely. The report, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, has said, gives a very good definition of the rule of the law. However, to communicate the idea unequivocally and effectively, it must be kept simple. Let me presume to suggest what the decent, law-abiding majority of our people understand by the term, the better to understand how to reverse erosion of the ideal.
First, there must be a body of law that we widely accept. Such laws have authority if they have long existed as part of the common law, handed down by courts and accepted by Parliament and people; or, they will have been passed in the other place and agreed by this House before receiving the Sovereign’s assent. That process leaves, or should leave, no cause for complaint.
Secondly, the police must enforce the law with absolute equality. Respect for the rule of law cannot endure accusations of two-tier policing. We must not, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier, prejudge the inquiry into the conduct of officers in the shocking case of Henry Nowak, murdered last December. However, many have seen the bodycam footage, which raises deeply disturbing questions about training and the attitudes and practices encouraged by senior officers. It is vital that these questions are answered.
Thirdly, as well as people having ready access to justice, the judiciary must be perceived to operate entirely impartially and not as activists—an accusation thrown at some immigration judges. The recent disquiet about lenient sentences for two teenage rapists, now reversed by the Lady Chief Justice, has highlighted problems with sentencing that ever more rigorous guidelines were supposed to have eliminated.
There is no evidence that our laws lack authority, but there is plenty that they are inadequately enforced. The public want blatant lawbreaking rigorously punished, otherwise anarchy will grow, as more people see less reason to conform. I understand entirely how difficult correcting this will be. Though financially overstretched, Britain needs more police, more prisons and a swifter criminal justice system, with more courts and more judges. Given the need to increase our defence budget, this accentuates the urgency of cutting the welfare bill to realistic levels so that that money can be found.
In my lifetime, confidence in the police has declined gravely. Stories of disgraced officers feature in our media depressingly often, whether extreme cases, such as that of the appalling Wayne Couzens, or the Walter Mitty chief constable who lied about serving in the Falklands. But there are other damaging perceptions. Something is wrong with priorities when precious resources are, for example, wasted sending police to caution people for being rude on social media, as happened just a week ago to a man in Chiswick, or when police are perceived as missing in action, as shown in footage broadcast last weekend of thugs fighting in broad daylight in the streets of once-sedate Bournemouth, with a drug deal being done openly in public there. Equally, as has been mentioned, people wonder why shops whose main function appears to be money laundering are allowed to proliferate in our high streets.
Our present Home Secretary seems a woman of ability and resolve. However, we plainly have some amoebic senior police officers, into whom she should urgently put some backbone. In that context, I was delighted to read the report on police leadership by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which I hope we shall have a chance to debate at length.
As we have heard, the Constitution Committee’s report mentions political rhetoric and social media criticising the judiciary. Free expression is implicit in a free society, however much some may dislike it. None of us is perfect, and, as the occasional revision of lenient sentences shows, this includes judges. But I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, that personal vilification is entirely unacceptable. The Lady Chief and the MoJ should reflect upon why judges are criticised and how better to obviate such criticism.
Lawlessness is deeply demoralising. It is also increasingly dangerous. A fundamental message should go out from this debate that the rule of law will fall into contempt if police will not or cannot make it their priority to enforce existing laws, and if courts cannot rapidly and effectively process the criminals they catch—and, if guilty, punish them in a fashion that protects and remoralises the public.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, there has been unanimity around this Chamber in welcoming the fact that we are debating the rule of law in the week in which we honour and commemorate a great upholder of the rule of law, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. There is also a degree of unity around the Chamber in welcoming the report and the work and leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has enabled us as a committee to produce such a welcomed report.
What is the rule of law as it is understood in the British constitution? It is not the rule of lawyers and it is not the takeover by judges of the policy-making role of political leadership. It is, primarily, the mechanism by which the use and misuse of power are regulated. That applies to the use of power by the state but also to the use of power by commercial businesses on which we rely to deliver public services, and sometimes to protect us from aggressive neighbours. We expect a lot from it. As Lord Sumption has put it,
“the rule of law is a body of principles without which we cannot exist as a society because, in their absence, human relations are nothing more than a contest in the deployment of power”.
Although the rule of law helps us to safeguard democracy, the two concepts are not the same. It is at least theoretically possible for the rule of law to operate in a society in which laws are not made democratically. We had that with the suffragettes, for example. We had the rule of law for centuries before most people could stand for election or vote. If laws are not democratically or fairly made, the rule of law can become the enforcement arm of the oppressor.
However, there are those, particularly some in political leaderships, who see the rule of law as an impediment to the pursuit of political objectives. They resent and rail against judicial review of executive action, which they see as inhibiting the rapid implementation of policies they believe they have a democratic authority to pursue. But judicial review of executive action does not turn the judge into a policymaker; it allows the judge to determine whether the Executive have the legal power to do what they propose, whether they have followed accepted procedure and whether it is manifestly irrational.
In considering the rule of law, it is important to recognise that it sits alongside the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is free to make whatever laws it chooses, and no Parliament can bind its successors. We do not have a written and entrenched constitution. The day job of the committee, as I sometimes call it, is to look at all legislation to see what constitutional implications it has, and to alert the House to dangers and constitutional threats such as those explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in the way legislation is constructed.
The belief that no one should be above the law or beyond its scope is fundamental to the way British people understand our democracy. I say that no one should be above the law because people are far from confident that that is true in practice. We saw that during the Covid pandemic, when the public were being instructed not to visit their dying relatives in care homes, while those who issued these instructions were having parties in Downing Street. “There’s one law for them and there’s one for us”, was the cry. The eventual fining of Ministers and officials for the parties was a needed corrective.
There was further damage to the rule of law during Covid, because Ministers and officials made statements which confused legal prohibitions with mere guidance, leading the police to impose fixed-penalty fines which were later overturned when they came before the courts. The concept of the rule of law suddenly acquired visible significance in the lives of citizens. I suggest that President Trump’s intervention in the matter of a red card being suspended illustrates how suddenly an issue will present the fact that observing rules and making sure that they apply to everybody is fundamental to the way our democracy works.
Governments need the rule of law. Often, they find it irksome or inconvenient, but without it, governance would become impossible. In words used by the committee, the rule of law is holding the line against tyranny and anarchy. Governments ought to be more careful with their actions and their words to support, rather than undermine, the rule of law, even unintentionally.
Too often Governments see laws as a way of signalling disapproval of actions or behaviour. Law defines penalties and punishments for failures to obey it; it is not a press release or a policy statement. Yet new laws are brought before Parliament on the basis that the Government must be seen to be doing something about an acknowledged problem. Even when there is no prospect that the new law will usefully add to the substantial amount of law already on the statute book, Governments say that “this law will send a powerful signal”. That is not what laws are for; they are to determine conduct and penalise people who do not carry out that conduct.
The rule of law is not simply a legal principle; it is a culture. It depends on acceptance that we are each obliged to obey the law, and an expectation that other people will do so. When one drives a car along the road or, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, pointed out, when one goes in a wheelchair down the street, it is a reasonable expectation that all but a few of the other drivers and pedestrians will keep to the law and observe the Highway Code. Otherwise, I would not want to risk getting behind the wheel or crossing the street. For most people, most of the time, it is not fear of getting a legal penalty which governs their behaviour; it is a culture in which we expect the law largely to be kept.
The Constitution Committee sets out in detail, which has been explained by noble Lords in this debate, the various principles involved in the rule of law. It is easy to see ways in which we fall short of these principles. Delays and backlogs in the criminal courts are appalling, and access to civil justice is restricted by delays and by the cost. Yet we have genuinely independent judges who are unbiased and not subject to control by the Executive.
We have complex ways of making the law—statute law, regulations, statutory guidance and common law—and that complexity makes it difficult and costly for individual citizens, so people depend on the voluntary sector of law centres and Citizens Advice, which cannot meet all the demands. We may have to develop artificial intelligence tools to help fill this gap. AI is already widely used to process routine legal work. Early legal advice can often avoid much higher costs in the courts and should be a priority.
What can the Government do to protect the rule of law? They should defend it and the judges who carry it out; they should educate people about it in ways which have been put forward in this debate; they should improve access to the law; and they should make better and preferably fewer laws.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for securing what has been an excellent debate. I join other noble Lords in thanking members of the Constitution Committee, many of whom are currently in their place. I must say, in a similar vein to the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who talked about legal eminence, that it is a huge honour and privilege to be speaking in a debate on the rule of law following no fewer than four noble and learned Lords, as defined by the Companion due to their previous seniority and renowned expertise within the judiciary.
At the start of this Parliament, the Government declared that the rule of law would be the “lodestar” of their term—words which commanded support from all sides of your Lordships’ House. But surely the true measure of government is found not in ministerial opening speeches but in the legislation that follows. With all due respect to this Government, there appears to have been a deviation from that very lodestar.
The committee reminds us that the rule of law performs a dual function. It protects citizens against arbitrary power, but it also protects society against disorder and lawlessness. It is the line held against both tyranny and anarchy. It is difficult to point to a better illustration of the first danger than the Government’s courts modernisation Bill. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition readily acknowledge the serious pressures facing the criminal courts. Victims deserve timely justice and defendants should not wait years for their cases to be heard. Surely constitutional rights should not be treated as administrative burdens. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave your Lordships an insight into the potential power of AI and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, flagged digital technology to reduce waiting lists. Is this something the Government are working on?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, referenced the constitution which has served us so well for three centuries. The right to trial by jury has outlived centuries precisely because it represents a profoundly important foundation stone; namely, that justice is not administered solely by the state but with the participation of the public themselves. It is one of the principal safeguards against the concentration of state power. Yet the Government now propose to remove that safeguard for significant categories of criminal offences, not because the constitutional principle has changed but because a number of Ministers—purportedly not all—regard it as more efficient to do so. Efficiency is indeed a legitimate and worthy objective of government, but efficiency has never been the highest constitutional principle. If it were, many of our liberties would long ago have disappeared. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, were correct when they said that the system is not broken. The UK is a brilliant country, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, advised, a health check on the judiciary is a most sensible proposal.
The committee also reminds us that the rule of law requires legal consistency and coherence. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, rightly proposed that people must have confidence that power is being exercised fairly and equally and there must be a widespread culture of respect for the law. Citizens should be able to understand what the law requires and why Parliament has legislated as it has. Citizens are entitled to expect that one Act of Parliament will not contradict another enacted only weeks before. Yet too often the perception is that the Government’s legislation appears to have been drafted in departmental silos rather than according to any co-ordinated approach to criminal justice or constitutional government.
When justifying the stripping back of the right to jury, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants were “gaming the system” by electing for Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences. The Minister for Courts publicly asked, “Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini-mart should receive the right to trial by jury?” But in the Crime and Policing Act, the Government included a section specifically to designate low-value shoplifting as a triable “either way” offence; in other words, there is a right to jury trial. If the Minister could clarify the Government’s position, many noble Lords would be grateful.
If the Minister for Courts believes that shoplifting offences are examples of minor offences for which jury trial should be removed, but just months later another Minister believes that low-level shoplifting offences are sufficiently serious to justify expansion into “either way” territory, it is understandably challenging to reconcile the Government’s position. Some would suggest that this is a Government legislating without a coherent direction on criminal justice and is a suboptimal way to uphold the rule of law.
If the courts modernisation Bill demonstrates one threat to the rule of law, the Government’s sentencing reforms illustrate another. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded us that perpetrators are rarely held to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned disrespect for the law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, ended his contribution by flagging that the system is undermined if rights are not enforced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, talked about widespread public disillusion; laws must be actioned and evenly applied. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, highlighted a shop being robbed and nothing happening. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, summarised it with a laser focus when he flagged that it is alarming that the law, once unquestioned, is now fragile. There is an epidemic of shoplifting and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the posse of non-law-abiding cyclists all over the country.
Without wishing to state the obvious, laws that are not enforced or whose consequences become increasingly remote inevitably lose their deterrent effect. The Government’s new presumption against short custodial sentences rests on the proposition that imprisonment should become an exceptional rather than ordinary response to a significant range of offending. This means that some shoplifters who now have the right to a trial by jury will waste time and resources in the Crown Court, only to be given a suspended sentence and face no prison time—surely we should ask: does this make sense?
The committee rightly reminds us that the rule of law depends not only on citizens obeying the law voluntarily but on public confidence that the law will be upheld fairly and consistently. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, and nor can legal obligations exist without meaningful consequences. The rule of law must be respected and non-compliance must carry a real expectation of sanction.
Public confidence is further eroded when, on those occasions when offenders do receive custodial sentences, prisoners who should be behind bars are mistakenly released. The public are entitled to expect that criminal justice is administered fairly but also competently. Under this Government, releases in error have more than doubled. At the end of last year, a convicted sex offender was released by mistake. The Lord Chancellor expressed considerable remorse at the individual’s release, promising to remove him from the streets as soon as possible, yet under this Government’s new sentencing reforms, those convicted of such a crime will not go to prison in the first instance. This raises serious questions. Is it a coincidence that the previous Safeguarding Minister resigned and has publicly called for exemptions to the Government’s indiscriminate early release proposals? Indeed, the Prime Minister in waiting has quite rightly expressed apprehension at the prospect of sex offenders being released early this autumn. It should be no surprise that, in the other place on Tuesday, the Motion from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regarding early release was carried through unopposed and, in fact, supported by a number of Government Back-Benchers.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referenced Shakespeare in 1584. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, talked about American independence in 1776. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, referenced William Pitt in 1801. If I may, I will finish by referencing Edmund Burke, a renowned political thinker from the 1700s, who observed that society is a partnership not merely between the living but between those who are dead, those who are living and those yet to be born. This country’s constitutional arrangements are part of that inheritance. They have evolved over multiple centuries because they reflect lived experience and deep wisdom concerning the relative balance between liberty and authority. That balance is never maintained by accident. It is because the rule of law guards against both tyranny and anarchy that it remains one of the defining principles of our constitution. That is why respect for the rule of law is critical and must be adhered to, as has been so well put by many noble Lords today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin, as have so many of your Lordships, by saying a few words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Many have spoken of his career as having been one of exceptional distinction, and observed that he served this country with great integrity and wisdom. I echo that and add a brief memory of my own. I met Lord Mackay a number of times when he was Lord Chancellor and I was a member of the Bar Council. I say I was a member—I was in fact the most lowly and undistinguished member of the Young Barristers’ Committee, having been called to the Bar about a year before and being still in pupillage at the time. Lord Mackay was unfailingly kind and courteous to me and always asked me what I thought. It really was the mark of the man to notice the least significant as well as the most important. We send the best wishes and great sympathies of your Lordships’ House to his family. He is going to be greatly missed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for having chaired the Constitution Committee during its inquiry into this important topic and for securing this very interesting debate. The issues debated today seem to take on ever greater significance in modern times. This has been reflected in the contributions of all those who have participated and it has been, as one would expect, a debate of exceptionally high quality. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the members of the committee for their thoughtful report. The Government recognise the growing public interest in what the rule of law means, not only in principle but in our fellow citizens’ experience as they go about their day-to-day lives.
The report rewards careful reading, together with the committee’s earlier work on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers, and on relations between the Executive, the judiciary and Parliament. These issues, concerning constraints on how Ministers act and how the different branches of our constitution work together, are fundamental to a healthy democracy and the strength of the rule of law.
In responding for the Government, I am not going to repeat everything we have said in response to the report, but I will highlight a number of key themes. I begin with the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I want to make this Government’s position clear. We have been unequivocal in our commitment to upholding the rule of law from the moment we were elected. We recognise that this commitment is a constitutional responsibility which must be carried into practice. It requires, among other things, the protection of judicial independence and respect for the institutions that sustain democratic life. The rule of law is not merely an abstract constitutional principle. Laws that are fair and clear, and courts that are known to adjudicate impartially, are among the stabilising features of a functioning democratic society. They provide the framework which allows our citizens to order their affairs, resolve disputes, hold public authorities to account and conduct business with confidence. The Government agree with the committee that this is not something we can ever take for granted. Indeed, as other Members of your Lordships’ House have said, around the world we have seen that the rule of law is weakened, or even breaks down, when Governments act unchecked or judiciaries are put under political pressure. The Government’s evidence to the committee referred to what has been described as a “global rule of law recession”. In that context, vigilance is essential.
This Government have described the rule of law as one of the most enduring of British values. It is not uniquely British, of course, but it has long shaped the constitutional development of the United Kingdom and its constituent nations. Over time, safeguards for judicial independence have developed and the limits of executive power have been settled. Those achievements require constant vigilance, as well as careful and disciplined maintenance. The relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts is central to the health of our democracy. A strong rule of law depends not only on what statutes say but on the habits of restraint, mutual respect and accountability that govern the way the institutions behave towards one another.
Within that framework, the constitutional roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers—I notice that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has materialised on the seat next to me—are of particular importance. The committee returned to these questions, and the Lord Chancellor recognised the continuity between this report and the committee’s earlier work on those offices. Their responsibilities form part of the architecture through which the rule of law is upheld within government. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General have led the way in setting out the Government’s commitment to the rule of law—which started in the very early days of this Government with my noble and learned friend’s Bingham Lecture—both within the United Kingdom and on the international stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, observed that many of our fellow citizens are perhaps broadly unaware of what is meant by the rule of law, but it concerns us all. It is a subject not only for lawyers or constitutional specialists; it matters to every person who expects the laws to be applied fairly, decisions to be taken lawfully, rights to be upheld and state power to be exercised within proper limits. Anyone who buys a house, opens a business, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, observed, falls out with a neighbour, is entitled to trust that society is effectively and fairly regulated by law.
Against that background, I turn to a few of the themes that have been raised by your Lordships during today’s very interesting debate. I start with judicial independence. It is one of the clearest themes in the committee’s report, and the Government are clear in their agreement. Independent courts are of fundamental importance. They are a vital protection against overreach by the Executive, and their impartiality gives the public confidence in our justice system and brings stability not only to public life but to social and, importantly, business relationships.
The Government are concerned about the danger posed by baseless attacks on the integrity of judges. We agree with the many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Burnett, and my noble friend Lady Andrews that in recent times we have seen a regrettable and intolerable rise in reckless criticism of judges. We see their impartiality being called into question and attempts to bring their independent role into the political fray. The Government are very concerned that abuse of the judiciary, on social media and elsewhere, has led to unacceptable threats to judges’ safety. The Lord Chancellor has spoken out against such attacks and has made clear his concern about attempts to erode public trust in the independent judiciary.
Judicial decisions will often be debated, scrutinised and criticised. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that that is entirely proper in a democratic society. However, our position is that such debate must proceed with care, accuracy and respect for the constitutional role of the courts. The committee’s observation, echoed by the Lady Chief Justice, that this is a shared responsibility and that we are stronger together is an important one. I am sure we can all agree on that point.
Where the Government do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is in his suggestion that the requirement that our judges and KCs have understanding of the principles of inclusion is some kind of ideological brainwashing. I think I may speak for many when I say that I am proud that our judges respect, understand and embrace the values of our diverse society. Our diverse society is not just about colour; it is about disability. I think we will all have been moved by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about his experience as a wheelchair user recently. We understand that that understanding in our judges is how we preserve their independence.
I turn to the committee’s consideration of issues relating to legislation, legal certainty and the legislative process. We recognise that the rule of law is shored up by the approach that we take to the ordinary business of governing—in the clarity of the laws that we pass, the discipline of legislative practice, the quality of scrutiny and the strength of institutions. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel publishes materials and drafting guidance designed to ensure that legislation is clear, accessible and consistent. It gives further support to legal clarity by reviewing Bills to make sure that legislation is comprehensible, including to those who do not have a detailed knowledge of the subject. We also recognise and pay tribute to the essential role played by committees of this House, which carry out scrutiny of legislation as it progresses. That is critical to maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.
The issue of delegated powers was raised by my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We take seriously and agree that delegated powers should be properly framed and strike the right balance between what is put in primary legislation and the flexibility that can sometimes be offered by delegated legislation. The Government publish a delegated powers memorandum for each Bill that contains such powers, setting out the proposed powers, their purpose and justification. This memo, alongside the Bill, will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The committee’s report highlights several important challenges relating to the maintenance of an effective justice system. These were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. These include delays in courts and tribunals and issues in accessing legal advice and representation. The Government are well aware of the scale of the challenge and are committed to reducing backlogs and improving the performance across courts and tribunals. Steps are being taken to increase judicial capacity. Working closely with the judiciary, the Government are also exploring the scope for achieving greater efficiency through the innovative use of technology across courts and tribunals. That includes AI-enabled tools for tasks such as transcription and document summarisation, with a view to supporting more timely case progression.
We also agree with the committee on the importance of a properly functioning system of legal aid. The scope of legal aid provision is under review. I reassure my noble friend Lady Andrews that there has been considerable investment in the legal aid system. For example, in response to the acute pressures in the housing and immigration sectors, the Government have increased fees in these categories for the first time since 1996. We have also increased criminal legal aid solicitors’ fees and invested up to £34 million a year for criminal defence advocate legal aid fees. The Government agree that people and businesses must be enabled to resolve disputes quickly and fairly.
On the subject of delays in the courts, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, asked four questions. I am looking at the clock, so I will write to him and place a copy in the Library, as there are answers to all of those but I do not have the time now to go into the detail that I think he would want.
I turn to trust in policing, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Blackwater and Lord Shinkwin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. We acknowledge that confidence in policing declines if there is a perception that the police are not consistently effective in responding to crime. This can be contributed to by a reduced visible presence in neighbourhoods and lower satisfaction among victims with how incidents are handled. Trust is shaped by how fairly and respectfully people feel that they are treated, particularly in the use of intrusive powers such as stop and search, where perceived disproportionality can undermine confidence among some communities. The Government are rebuilding trust in policing by being more effective in tackling the crimes that have the greatest impact on communities. The police have been successful in reducing knife crime, but we recognise that less dramatic crimes such as anti-social behaviour can have a corrosive effect on confidence within communities. That is why we have brought in a number of new orders designed to reduce this.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes that the term “two-tier policing” is used mainly to drive division and hatred. It undermines the brave work of police officers up and down the country who do their job, as they should, without fear or favour. Irresponsible claims of two-tier justice are not supported by the evidence and risk undermining confidence in the institutions that uphold the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, all mentioned the teaching of the rule of law in schools. The Government completely agree that a healthy democracy depends on informed citizens. It is important to present the rule of law as a foundational principle in this context. Work to improve the education given to young people on these points is well under way. For example, the Attorney-General’s office has been working with the Oak National Academy and the Association for Citizenship Teaching to develop new lesson plans on the rule of law for all key stages, and new lesson plans were launched on 2 July. More broadly, the Attorney-General’s Youth Ambassadors Programme recruits young people from across the United Kingdom and plays an important role in ensuring that the rule of law is communicated across the United Kingdom and beyond in a way that is accessible, engaging and rooted in the voice of the youth.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths asked about the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. I asked for the answer, and all I can say is that we are working towards ratification. I am afraid it is not what my noble friend was hoping for; I cannot give him any more than that at present. My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group. I am happy to tell her that it next meets on 28 July. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I am afraid to say, turned the debate into rather a partisan attack on the Government. I hope that he and your Lordships will forgive me for not going into the issue of jury trials today.
The Government welcome the committee’s contribution, together with the further thoughts that have been expressed in your Lordships’ House today. We will continue to reflect carefully on the recommendations the committee has made. We should not take our courts and tribunals, or the wider constitutional culture that supports them, for granted. Events in other parts of the world show what can happen when public confidence in these institutions is undermined. The challenge before us is not a theoretical one: it is a practical constitutional responsibility. This Government are dedicated to ensuring that the rule of law remains not only a defining principle of our constitution but a lived reality in the governance of the country. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave: Britain is not broken. We are proud of the United Kingdom’s long history of respect for the rule of law, but our pride must be matched by vigilance.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all those who spoke in the debate. I am particularly pleased that the Minister again said that the Government have unequivocal support for the rule of law. I never thought they would not have unequivocal support, but it is good to reaffirm these things. In that context, I very much welcome the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to our deliberations; it is a pleasure to see him today.
I was struck, early on in the debate, by something said between the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is a long-term, well-known, political heavyweight bruiser of the Labour Party and, of course, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave is renowned for his intellectual integrity and great skills, and yet the two of them got together on this committee and agreed wholeheartedly with every aspect of this. None of us should be surprised by this, because the rule of law is genuinely universal. It is part of the reason we are here.
My noble friend Lord Blackwater asked why we are debating this subject. We occasionally do need to reaffirm the underlying beliefs of the rule of law and how important they are. That is why I also very much welcome what the noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said. They joined this debate, saying that they had not been on the committee but felt moved to do so because we discussed some really important matters that needed to be covered. I am also particularly grateful to noble Lords and noble friends who talked about Parliament and legislation, and for what the noble Baroness said about legislation.
I said earlier that we are all guilty of sometimes trying to rush things through Parliament, but the Constitution Committee and some of the other committees in the House are ever vigilant of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers being taken inappropriately. We all understand the pressures that fall upon government, but it is important that we safeguard our own integrity.
I will just finish by making a final tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who sat on the Woolsack for 10 years as Lord Chancellor, Lord Speaker and head of the judiciary. His integrity shone from every pore and I like to think that he too would have very much enjoyed this debate. I am very grateful to all those who took part.