House of Commons
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)? I am proud to have been a member of a Government with the first female Chancellor in 700 years. She did hard yards on the task of rebuilding Britain’s fiscal credibility, public services and levels of growth after 14 years of Conservative Governments’ failure. I now build on her work.
Yesterday, I set out the Government’s determination to see the next chapter of Britain’s growth story written in more places. That means more devolution and the combined force of the Government to get things done, back businesses and get more investment, innovation and jobs across the UK.
Elaine Stewart
Last week, the UK Government announced a financial boost of £11.8 million to support the regional economy across Ayrshire. The money will fund projects across Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, supporting employability and business start-ups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the SNP is obsessed with centralising in Holyrood and taking away local powers, the route to regional economic growth lies in empowering local communities and local councils?
John Healey
My hon. Friend does a great job of standing up for the people of Ayrshire. The £11.8 million will fund jobs, training and business start-ups right across Ayrshire. In England, this is a Government who are backing local areas to generate growth in more areas, and I would love to see the Scottish nationalist Government do the same.
Tristan Osborne
Thank you, Mr Speaker—and happy Star Trek Day.
Last week, the Opposition chose to Klingon to the Truss legacy, and what a damaging legacy that was. How can we engage in warp speed, so that our economy continues to grow the fastest in the G7?
John Healey
Mr Spock, I think some would say, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend is right. Despite global conflicts, trade tensions and rising threats in the world, which are pushing up inflation, bearing down on growth and pushing up borrowing costs, the UK economy is demonstrating huge resilience. He is right that in the first six months of this year, the UK economy grew the fastest in the G7. I set out yesterday some early steps to back stronger growth in more places: backing innovation with more investment in fast-growth firms across the north; changing the Government’s Green Book discount rate so that projects across the country with long-term potential will get a fairer hearing; and taking an axe to the thicket of administration that too often slows down decisions, holds back growth and prevents the private investment that we need.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
This week, Arthur Laffer, economic adviser to three former US Presidents, said Britain is being taxed to death under this Labour Government, so will the Chancellor rule out tax rises in the Budget?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman could have asked that question to any Chancellor at any time in the past few decades, and no Chancellor ahead of a Budget would have commented on speculation or ruled out measures. I will set out the decisions I take before the House on 28 October, and I look forward to him being there on that day.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The former Chancellor invested a significant amount of political capital into driving forward the white elephant project of building a third runway at Heathrow on the basis that it would deliver economic growth, but the Government’s appraisal report states that the net present value of expansion is between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion. Will this Chancellor put an end to this absurd proposal?
John Healey
After years of delay, indecision and often vexatious challenge, we have given the go-ahead to this project quite simply because the economic case stacks up and will help to bring growth.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Chancellor’s clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of the Budget; it is certainly an important step he has taken. On the issue of certainty, the National Wealth Fund is a critical investor in crowding in private investment around the UK. I noted that he has changed the remit. How will he balance his desire to see change with ensuring that it is strong and stable and that there is certainty for businesses seeking to invest with the support of the National Wealth Fund?
John Healey
I thank my hon. Friend for that, for the work she does in chairing the Treasury Committee and for her previous work on the Public Accounts Committee. She is right about the damage of speculation ahead of Budget. It led last year, for instance, to a large number of people cashing in pension pots, but the speculation was entirely unfounded.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the National Wealth Fund, we have capitalised it by over £200 billion, and the challenge is to ensure that we get good value-for-money decisions, but decisions made quicker, so that we can get investment into local areas to see private investment bring the growth that we need.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I have known him for a long time—I wish him well. He has a huge task ahead of him. Earlier in the summer, the Prime Minister said that walking the streets of Makerfield lodged in his mind that so many working people want to see the personal allowance raised. In Reform, we want to do that as well; in fact, we want to raise it to £15,000 a year and to make work pay. Is it still the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s ambition to raise the personal allowance?
John Healey
At the Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) continued the freeze in the personal allowance, which was first brought in by the Conservatives, in order to help fund the improvements in health and schools that this country needs that the people voted for at the election just two years ago. We will keep all of this under review, as we always do. Reform is making promises that it simply cannot keep. The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have known him a long time; I say to him and to the country that he is also a man whose own party leader described as
“a man that believed in nothing”.
Mr Speaker
The Chancellor does not need to worry; he has no responsibility for Reform.
I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), could he make a short speech today from the Dispatch Box to say that he does not plan to increase the tax burden further?
John Healey
I could have spoken a lot longer yesterday. I am grateful to the hon. Member for watching or reading it. In the two years of this Labour Government, we have started to see this country beginning to turn a corner. That is a corner after 14 years in which the previous Tory Governments had a record of low growth and high debt, and a mini-Budget that crashed the British economy and collapsed confidence in Britain’s fiscal strength. This country has huge strengths in its people, its businesses and its communities, who want to seize the future. This is a country in which interest rates have been cut six times since the election; in which borrowing, which is still too high, is down to a six-year low; in which growth—still fragile and under pressure—was fastest in the first half of this year in the G7; and in which productivity and investment are finally, after long Conservative years, beginning to tick up. That is the basis on which we now build.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the Chancellor to his place. After two anti-growth Budgets, I genuinely wish him well and urge him to deliver a growth Budget this autumn, so that we can avoid more punishing tax rises or painful spending cuts.
Last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Brexit had ushered in a “decade of low growth” but did not outline what he thinks is needed to tackle it. On Monday, the Chancellor made what was briefed as a major economic speech on growth, the product of deep thinking, and yet there was barely a mention of the impact of Brexit. Recent studies suggest that deeper alignment with Europe could boost GDP by at least 2.5% to 3.6%, so should the Chancellor’s plan for growth not include the growth and defence partnership with the EU that we have called for?
John Healey
The hon. Lady is talking to the person who led the work to establish a defence and security partnership with the European Union and bilateral agreements with other countries, on which we now build both our economic strength and our national security strength.
On the question of the Budget, I ask the hon. Lady to look at what we have done in the seven weeks of this Government. We know that we cannot relieve the cost of living and the cost of business pressures, but we will take steps where we can to do that. I will take that principle into the Budget, and we will back business and do what we can to see growth in more places across the country, because for too long this country has relied on too few of our major cities to drive national growth.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
My hon. Friends are right to ask these critical questions, and I agree with them that private investment is critical to delivering good growth in every postcode. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that centralisation of power has led to too much of the country losing out on investment, leading to lower productivity and lower living standards for our constituents. The Chancellor set out yesterday his vision to shift power and resources so that they sit with local leaders, to enable long-term local investment and industrial strategies that will crowd in private investment.
Dr Gardner
Stoke and north Staffordshire is an industrial heartland known around the world for its prowess in ceramics. With the right support, its full economic potential can be unleashed. As an officer on the Labour Reindustrialisation Research Group, I am working with Stoke council on a reindustrialisation plan to ensure that Stoke and north Staffordshire make the fullest possible contribution to growth across the UK. Will the Minister commit the Treasury to working with us on a reindustrialisation plan to maximise our region’s expertise in advanced materials, defence and digital technology, so that we can all go forth and prosper?
Dan Tomlinson
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that going forth and prospering is a very good objective, and I look forward to working with her and the local businesses in her constituency that she has raised with me, including Mantec and Goodwin. There are some fantastic ceramics and advanced manufacturing businesses that we need to identify, and across the Treasury and No. 10 North, we will work with local leaders and parliamentarians to ensure that we can identify the right clusters in the right places to back and support.
Dan Carden
Last month, Liverpool city region’s visitor economy reached £6.8 billion, and our productivity growth is currently running at four times the national average. The region has an incredibly exciting plan to redevelop Central station in the city centre and link it to Lime Street. It would be one of the most important growth stories and opportunities for the whole of the north of England, and it would drive billions in investment from the private sector. When the Minister visits us for the party conference, will he take a bit of time to meet Mayor Rotheram and the leader of the council, Liam Robinson, to see their exciting plans?
Dan Tomlinson
I am delighted to inform my hon. Friend that my conference calendar already includes a meeting with local leaders in Liverpool to talk about what we can do to back growth and investment in his city and region. I have been in conversations already with the mayor of the city region about the things that he wants to work on and focus on to boost economic growth, and that includes the Liverpool Central development.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Private investment in the steel industry in Northern Ireland is being curtailed by the Windsor framework, because it is forcing businesses in Upper Bann to pay 50% EU tariffs on category 4 and category 7 steel. How many jobs must be lost across Northern Ireland’s manufacturing sector before the Chancellor takes action on this crazy steel tariff situation?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government understand the challenges of the implementation of steel tariffs, but we have to ensure that we keep a foundational steel sector in the UK. That is critical for our national supply and our national security. The Government looked very carefully at ensuring that the tariffs were applied in the right way to protect downstream suppliers, and we will continue to engage with industry and with Members of Parliament on these important decisions.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Good growth in every postcode is a very catchy slogan, but it will mean nothing if it is not backed up with investment. Time and again, significant funding is announced for cities and urban areas, usually in the north, while the south-west is left with pennies in comparison. Yesterday, the Chancellor once again announced investment in the north with no mention of investment in the south-west. That might be due to political expediency—I could not possibly say—but what are the Government going to do specifically to encourage growth in the south-west?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member raises an important point. We need to ensure that we see higher economic growth in every part of the country, and that includes the north, the east, the west and the south-west of England. We have many fantastic Members on both sides of the House who are working and advocating for their communities. We will ensure that we drive and deepen devolution in areas that do not yet have a mayor. The Prime Minister has discussed the need to ensure that those who do not want to have a mayor—he highlighted Cornwall—can have specific further devolution powers. One of the examples we are looking at not too far from the hon. Member’s constituency, I believe, is place-based business cases, so that we can unlock investment in particular parts of the country; one of the places that we are looking at in detail is Plymouth.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
We love our pubs, so to support them the Prime Minister announced in his first week after taking office a 20% cut in business rates for them, as well as for social clubs and live music venues, from April 2027. That is building on the 15% reduction earlier this year. I and other Ministers have regular discussions with representatives from the pubs and hospitality sector to understand the impact of business rates support.
Claire Hazelgrove
My first job was as a pot washer and waitress in a pub at the age of 14. Today, pubs help me to bring fellow residents together for my pub politics events across the constituency. I know how much our pubs mean to us locally, and I warmly welcome further support for them. Will the Minister set out how that support will help to give pubs and the wider sector the certainty they need so that they and the great jobs they provide are here for generations to come?
James Murray
I know my hon. Friend is a great champion of pubs in her constituency. In fact, she has brought together people for her pub politics events, including at the Willy Wicket, the Beaufort Arms, the Baileys Court Inn—which I have been to—and the White Lion, where people come to talk about issues that matter to them. The support we are providing for pubs will be worth nearly £250 million next year. That will benefit around 32,000 venues, which helps to ensure that they and the jobs they provide will be there for the future.
Peter Swallow
I recently stopped by the wonderful Koh-I-Noor Indian restaurant in Priestwood to meet its owner, Kamran, and to speak about the realities of running a family-owned restaurant. He told me how rising costs were making it challenging for him to invest and grow his business. I genuinely welcome the Chancellor’s action on cutting business rates for pubs and music venues ahead of the Budget, but will the Minister look at what more he can do to support the hospitality and retail businesses at the heart of our local communities?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the contribution that businesses such as Koh-I-Noor provide to local communities and economies. As he set out, the Government are helping pubs right now, because of the important community assets that they are and the real pressures that they face. I assure him that we will continue to look at what more we can do to support high street businesses more widely to help them to invest and grow.
Gill German
Like our new Prime Minister, many of us on the north Wales coast love the pubs and music venues of the north-west. The boost to them from business rates relief is really welcome, but we love our pubs and venues too. Pubs such as the Bay Hop and the Mayquay face the same challenges as our north-west neighbours, and we want to attract more live music to north Wales too. Decisions on business rates in Wales are of course the responsibility of the Welsh Government, but does the Minister agree that the need for support does not stop at the border, and that a 20% cut to business rates in Wales would be a welcome boost for us too?
James Murray
I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the vital role that pubs and clubs play in local communities on either side of the border. As she rightly points out, business rates decisions in Wales are a decision for the Welsh Government. In England, we have taken action to support community venues and high streets, including the targeted business rates support for pubs. I urge the Welsh Government to consider doing the same.
Will Stone
Pubs across Swindon, such as Arkell’s, contacted me regularly about the reduction in business rates, so I thank the Minister for that. However, can he outline whether there will be any further business rates reductions for the wider hospitality sector?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is a great champion for pubs and other hospitality venues in his constituency, including Arkell’s brewery, which I know supplies pubs across Swindon and Wiltshire. As he rightly points out, we have provided support for pubs and community venues, which the Prime Minister announced soon after taking office. We will consider all options for what we can do to further support them in the Budget.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
That is some brass neck, Mr Speaker. I am astounded that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and expect credit and gratitude for giving a little bit of support to a sector that his own policies have undermined and destroyed—two pubs a day closing down, and 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality and tourism. Will he instead adopt the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief and actually support these sectors, rather than giving hypocritical warm words?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman has some cheek, given the number of pubs that closed when his party was in government. The Labour party is making sure that the business rates system is set right for the future. Not only have we announced a 20% cut in business rates for pubs as a result of the new Prime Minister taking office, but I was pleased to announce a review of the way in which pubs and hotels are valued for the future, following concerns raised by the sector. That review will report in time for decisions taken on the basis of it to be in place for the next revaluation.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Pubs, cafés and restaurants are among the largest employers of young people across the country, but the sector has seen 100,000 job losses as a result of the Government’s jobs tax. Business rates relief might have some impact, but the hospitality sector is telling us that what it needs is a cut in VAT to really help people get back into hospitality venues. Have the Government looked at what a cut in VAT would be able to do for both growth and new jobs?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important role that pubs and hospitality play in providing jobs, including jobs for young people. However, I gently say to him that one of the issues with the Lib Dems is that they welcome extra investment in our NHS and public services, but they never want to pay for it. When it comes to hard decisions on the economy, all they offer is soft politics.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The 20% rate cut for music venues and pubs is of course very welcome, but what my high street in Bath really needs is an overhaul of the business rates system, which the Labour Government promised. Rather than accuse us of not having ideas, will the Minister do the bold thing, which is to get rid of business rates and replace them with a commercial landowner levy?
James Murray
As the Prime Minister made clear when he took office, we are giving pubs and community venues real breathing space through the 20% cut to their business rates, but our reform of business rates and our support for the high street does not end there. We are considering every possible opportunity to support retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street, so that high streets in all our communities across the country can thrive.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I recently visited the Station House in Cheadle Hulme, one of the Almond family’s five pubs in Stockport, and spoke to the owner, Doug, about how hard it was for him to run his business. Like many pub owners across the country, the Almonds welcome the 20% cut in business rates, but they are contending with a system that penalises hospitality. The Minister dodged the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), so may I ask him to commit himself now? Will the Government overhaul the business rates system so that community pubs such as the Station House can help our high streets to thrive?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Station House in his constituency; I am sure we all have pubs in our own neighbourhoods that we feel are at the heart of the local communities that we represent.
The 20% business rates cut that we announced was a down payment on further reform. We will continue to look into what we can do to support pubs, hospitality and other high street uses, because we know how much they matter to everyone in this Chamber and all the people whom we represent.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
As the Member of Parliament for the constituency with more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, I have been campaigning to reform the broken business rates system for longer than I have been an MP. My understanding is that the Government’s review will look at the fair maintainable trade criterion, which sees pubs singled out to be valued on the basis of what they could earn rather than what they actually earn; but, as pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), the review falls far short of the Labour party manifesto, which pledged to overhaul the entire business rates system. May I ask Ministers whether that pledge still stands? If so, will they overhaul the business rates system before the next general election?
James Murray
I wonder whether any other Members might say that they have the most pubs in their constituency, or whether the hon. Lady has done her research. [Interruption.] I hear her saying that hers are the best pubs, a claim that even more Members may challenge in the Chamber.
Although the hon. Lady and I have some differences, I think that we share a desire to see a fairer business rates system. I know that the 20% cut for pubs and community venues was widely welcomed, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that we want to go on looking at what we can do to support our hospitality venues, pubs and other high street uses. This is not a question of taking one policy announcement from July and thinking that that is the end of the story, because we know how important high streets are to communities across the country, and we want to see them thrive.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
This is a Government who are determined to help good councils and businesses to breathe new life into our high streets and town centres. In April we introduced a permanent reduced tax rate worth almost £1 billion for high street businesses, and in July, in the new Prime Minister’s first week, he and I announced a further 20% cut for pubs, social clubs and music venues. This is a Government who will do what they can to help bring a bit of breathing space from the cost of living and the costs of business.
Mr Rand
In Altrincham and Sale West, we know how much our pubs and bars contribute to the local high streets of which we are so proud. That contribution goes beyond their economic impact; they create the sense of community that is so important to local people. The Government’s 20% cut in business rates was indeed welcome to them, but I know from events that I have held locally with the Altrincham business improvement district that they still face challenges and need more support. Will the Chancellor update the House on what more he will do to support all hospitality businesses in constituencies such as mine?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks up very strongly for his local area. He is right about the importance of pubs, social clubs and live venues, and about the importance of the 20% cut that we announced in July. These are the things that make the places where we live the places that we also love. Later this year the Government will produce our high street strategy, and I encourage my hon. Friend to contribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in that regard. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said a few moments ago: he should see the move that we made in July as a down payment on further reform.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Conservatives will save our high streets, and may I explain to the Chancellor why that is important? Donna, who ran the Beverly Card Company, saw this Labour Government increase her business rates from £135 a month to £840 a month. That is why in February, after 30 years of her running it and having won national awards, the business closed. She will have to make payments for the next four years for those business rates. Will the Chancellor stop trimming, support the Conservative plan and abolish business rates altogether for the 250,000 high street businesses? He needs to stop talking and sounding sympathetic, and actually do something that makes a difference to our high streets.
John Healey
What an extraordinary claim! It is hard to take seriously the idea that somehow the Conservatives will save our high streets. We are, of course, concerned about the impact of business taxation. As a Government, we have put in £4.3 billion to help cushion the changes, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s area. We are in the process of taking further steps to review and reform the business rates system, and I will be able to set out more details at the Budget.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Chancellor is going around lauding an apparent cut to business rates, but it was his Government who reduced business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure from 75% to 40%. If he goes out there and speaks to the owner of any average pub, they will tell him that their business rates have almost doubled. Why will he not answer the question as to why he cannot and will not follow the Conservative plan to cut Labour’s spiralling welfare bill to fund the abolishment of business rates for hundreds of thousands of high street businesses across our country?
John Healey
The Prime Minister and I have been clear that we must cut the costs of welfare. On levels of taxation, we had a period of Conservative Government, with low growth and high debt. They crashed the economy with the mini-Budget, and we had levels of taxation that were putting pressure on business, adding to the cost of living. What people have seen under this Government is a willingness to recognise those pressures and to do what we can—not to remove them, but to provide relief where we can. It is about giving people and families a bit of breathing space from the cost of living, and giving businesses a bit of breathing space from the costs of business. That is why the move that the Prime Minister and I made in July for pubs, social clubs and live venues was so welcomed.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government will support good growth in every postcode, including in Cornwall and Gloucester. We have already established No. 10 North to work in partnership with local leaders, businesses and communities, and at the Budget next month we will publish plans for further fiscal devolution, including greater retention of business rates revenue for local councils and strategic authorities.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the Minister for her answer. I fully support the Government’s exciting agenda of devolution, which takes power out of Whitehall and puts it into the hands of residents and communities like mine. However, my constituency of Gloucester does not have a metro mayor, and we are not part of a combined authority. I am determined to ensure that Gloucester is not left behind and is included in these important plans going forward. Can the Minister confirm how we can work together to ensure that Gloucester feels the benefits and investment from the Government’s devolution agenda?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency. The Cabinet statement on devolution set out the Government’s ambitions to accelerate devolution across the country by establishing a strategic authority for every area in England that wants one by the end of 2028. All strategic authorities, including those without a mayor, will benefit from greater powers over skills, transport and housing.
Perran Moon
As the furthest southerly Labour MP in the UK, I note several recent announcements of funding going to the north of England and mayoral strategic authorities. I have been very encouraged by the Prime Minister’s comments on Cornish devolution, and there is no requirement for Cornwall to join a mayoral strategic authority, but can the Minister elaborate on how changes to regional funding arrangements will support the Cornish economy?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his area. As he said, the Prime Minister has been engaging with Cornwall—including, importantly, with its six MPs, including my hon. Friend—on a devolution agreement. This will support the Cornish economy through stronger statutory powers on transport and housing, and the ability to introduce an overnight visitor levy, which can be invested in projects that drive growth in the region. As he will know, the Government are already investing in Cornwall’s high potential sectors with the £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Chief Secretary to her new position, but what words of comfort could she give the residents of Salisbury in Wiltshire, a unitary authority? We are not part of a combined authority and we do not have a metro mayor. Since this Government came in, we have seen the lowest settlement or one of the lowest three settlements on police funding and local government funding, and we have seen the withdrawal of funding for our road network in the south of Wiltshire. There is a concern that, with the focus elsewhere in big urban metropolitan areas, rural England will be forgotten. Is that not likely to be the case?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, in whose footsteps I am again following by taking on another job that he did in government. As a former Environment Secretary, living in a rural area of Buckinghamshire myself and representing a semi-rural seat, I reassure him that this Government of course care about driving growth in rural areas. There is great potential there, which is why we are supporting our farmers through a £2.7 billion a year sustainable farming budget, and we are also improving connectivity in rural areas.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Notwithstanding the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), my constituency neighbour, does the Minister not need to reflect on the fact that Cornwall, being the poorest region in the country and therefore entitled to EU objective 1 aid, is now receiving no regional funding whatsoever? That is simply not sustainable for a region that really does need additional support to get growth happening.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I disagree with his assessment. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), there are opportunities for areas that do not opt to have a mayor, but set up as foundation strategic authorities to gain the benefit of retaining more business rates and of greater powers over skills, transport and housing.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
As part of the £600 million package the Government announced in May, there will be no rise in fuel duty this year. This means that the temporary 5p cut will be extended till the end of the year, providing certainty to motorists. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 per year for the average car, compared with the plans inherited from the previous Government.
Christine Jardine
I appreciate what the Minister has said about the fuel duty freeze, but the Liberal Democrats have called for an emergency cut of 10p per litre, which would make a difference of 12 per litre at the pump for ordinary families. For my hard-pressed constituents in Edinburgh West this winter, that could make a big difference not only to their travel costs, but to the cost of food and other services. Will the Government consider that emergency cut in the forthcoming Budget?
James Murray
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of providing breathing space for families, which is a priority for us as a Government, and she mentioned her plans. I have set out what we have done since the general election to reduce fuel prices by 11p per litre compared with what they would have been otherwise. As I set out in my earlier remarks, the 5p cut has been extended to the end of the year, and as she would expect, any future decisions will be taken at the Budget by the Chancellor.
Greg Smith
I cannot believe the Minister just said he wanted to give families breathing space when the RAC Foundation has found that, since fuel prices increased due to international issues earlier this year, the Treasury has raked in £1 billion extra from the VAT on fuel. How can it possibly be fair on motorists or give them any breathing space whatsoever to carry on with another fuel duty hike in January?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that international events have an impact on prices here at home. We did not want to get involved in that conflict, unlike the Conservative party. None the less, we are impacted by it, and the right thing for us to do as a Government is to make sure we are providing breathing space for families as we weather international events.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the cut on fuel duty, although motorists are being not only squeezed at the pumps but ripped off by unfair monthly insurance charges. Does the Minister agree that insurance companies should not be charging unfair and unjustified additional costs for monthly insurance, when that is what most people can afford? Will he meet me to discuss the Which? research, which has found that people paying monthly for insurance are paying hundreds of pounds in additional costs?
James Murray
Although my hon. Friend is right that fuel duty is one cost that families face, they also face a number of other costs, including through insurance. He is a formidable campaigner on a range of issues, so I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue, or to ask my colleague, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), to do so, if she is better placed to respond.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s fuel duty freeze for working families, alongside the road tax holiday for hauliers and the diesel fuel duty cut. Fuel costs for businesses in my constituency, such as Northfield quarry near Dunipace, have nearly tripled due to the Iran war and the previous Government’s tightening of eligibility for red diesel. In the Budget, will the Chancellor consider extending fuel duty reductions for industries such as quarrying, which is essential for house construction and provides good local jobs for working families?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his request of the Chancellor at the Budget. As the Chancellor set out earlier, he will take those decisions at the Budget in the normal way, but my hon. Friend has made a powerful case for his constituents and used this opportunity to ensure that all of us on the Treasury Front-Bench team have heard what he has to say.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Fuel duty is catnip for a Chancellor desperate for revenue, but it is no sin tax, because for millions of Britons, vehicles are lifelines not luxuries. The imminent rise in fuel duty comes as tankers are ablaze in the strait of Hormuz. Must family budgets also go up in flames?
James Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is that the price of fuel is linked to international events, which, as I said earlier, I very much agree with. That is why it is important that we de-escalate the situation in the strait of Hormuz, which is the best way to bring down the cost of fuel. Meanwhile, the Government are determined to give families across the country breathing space—extending the 5p cut until the end of the year, a £2 cap on bus fares, and removing VAT from electricity bills—as we weather the impact of international events.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Public sector productivity is improving, with the NHS delivering 3.5% productivity growth in 2025-26, beating its 2% target. The Government will continue to drive public sector efficiency so that taxpayers’ money delivers the best possible public services. In addition, we are investing in AI adoption across the public sector to help realise the overall target of £14 billion of efficiencies by 2028-29, as agreed at the last spending review.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
May I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to her new role? If she has any questions, may I recommend an excellent book by a former Chancellor, which has a number of tips? [Laughter.] The public sector is 20% of our national output, so it offers a major opportunity for the Government to improve our national productivity. Was it wise to give the ASLEF train drivers on the Avanti West Coast route an above-inflation pay rise without any apparent productivity quid pro quo? With the public finances so tight, should the rule not be that above-inflation increases must have productivity gains sitting alongside them?
Emma Reynolds
We in the Treasury Front-Bench team are wondering when the third book in the trilogy will come along and what it might be called. We have a guess for the title of the next book. I thank him for his advice in his books and in his recent Financial Times article. On train drivers and their pay, I am proud to be part of a Government who have avoided strikes that impact on public spending.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Public sector productivity is improving, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing output continuing to grow faster than inputs, and Departments being challenged to improve efficiency and modernise outdated processes. Can the Minister confirm that the Government expect that will have a positive impact for residents in Feltham and Heston and people across the country, ensuring that Government services are faster, better and easier to access?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Driving public sector productivity is extremely important in two ways: first, because we get better value for money for taxpayers for the tax that people are putting in, including taxpayers in our own constituencies; and secondly, as she says, we are driving efficiencies, faster service delivery and using AI in the NHS to really drive improvements in care, as well as delivering more bang for buck.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Many commentators have commented about public sector productivity underperformance. EY tells us that the public sector has underperformed to the point where it has cut GDP growth by 3% since 2019. The Institute for Government highlights an average of nearly 1% underperformance every year for that same period. Morgan Stanley reminds us that in the last year private sector productivity was up 1.8%, but public sector underperformance dragged it back into negative territory. Despite that, public sector pay was up over 6% last year, against private sector pay up just 2.8%. Why are the Government rewarding poor performance and does the Chancellor think that is sustainable?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are focused on driving public sector productivity to reach the efficiency targets I talked about. We are holding each Department to account on that. As I said earlier, we are seeing great progress in the NHS, which is making a huge contribution to our productivity gains as a Government.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
Since day one in the job, the Prime Minister and I have been in lockstep in our determination to meet Britain’s fiscal rules. This is the bedrock on which we build good growth and help give a bit of breathing space to families and businesses. We acted in the first week to cap bus fares, cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live venues, and cut VAT on electricity bills. We have also announced further sanctions on Russia. We have changed procurement rules to back British jobs. We launched a new plan for growth from places right across the UK and £100 million to back British sovereign AI firms. This is a Labour Government who are determined to deliver good growth in every postcode and sound fiscal discipline.
Steff Aquarone
If the Treasury wants a quick trick to increase tax receipts from new employment, may I suggest that the Chancellor takes steps to boost rural bus connectivity? North Norfolk has independent operators such as Central Connect which, in spite of challenges facing the sector, has managed to double its bus frequency in Stalham and Hoveton. It wants to go further. Can he tell us how he will work with the Department for Transport to ensure barriers are lifted and support is provided to bring more buses to my constituents?
John Healey
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise that capping bus fares must be a benefit to his constituency in Norfolk and a benefit to passengers. Beyond that, let me take his contribution as an early Budget representation.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She raises a concern about the interaction between matured child trust funds and adult social care assessments. The financial assessment framework to which she refers is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but I am, of course, more than happy to facilitate a conversation with her and the relevant departmental Minister.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me pay tribute to my own predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and let me welcome the Chancellor to his role. He is already responsible for the highest borrowing costs for 28 years. One in six of our young people are unemployed and yesterday we had the news that one of Britain’s top taxpayers is leaving our country. Every time a billionaire leaves, our country becomes poorer. Chris Rokos is reported to have paid over £300 million in taxes last year. Could the Chancellor tell us how many average taxpayers it will take to replace him?
John Healey
I welcome the new shadow Chancellor to his place and thank him for his words. I welcome him back to the Treasury brief—perhaps Members on the Government Benches will have more to say about that later. I echo his comments about the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who has played an important role in this House, including his cross-party work during the pandemic as Chair of the Treasury Committee. We thank him for that as he steps down from the Front Bench.
The shadow Chancellor takes reports in the paper and tries to make serious points in this House. We will set out our plans at the Budget to give families and businesses a bit of breathing space, to back good growth in more places throughout this country, and to rebuild confidence in strong British fiscal discipline—something that was lost under the shadow Chancellor’s Government.
Andrew Griffith
The Chancellor does not know the answer. On the Treasury’s own statistics, it would take 38,000 average income tax payers to make up for the loss of Chris Rokos. That is a lot of breathing space paid for. It means higher taxes for everyone else, or lower public spending. We know what Labour will choose. The last Chancellor raised taxes on farmers, family businesses and jobs. Conservatives will reform welfare to cut taxes; Labour always puts them up. Which, if any, of his predecessor’s damaging decisions will the Chancellor reverse?
John Healey
The future of this country will be written in our growth rates, after 14 years in which we had low growth, high debt and a Budget that crashed confidence in the British economy. Under this Government, we have already seen a new way of generating growth in more places across the country. Members have seen the way that we will reform the centre of Whitehall, so that we cut through slow decision making, with public leadership and control made accountable to the people. I made announcements yesterday on the ways that we will go further to axe the thicket of administration, to back fast-growth firms, and to change the way that we generate investment across the country.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Dan Tomlinson)
My hon. Friend is an expert on those matters and is totally right to point to the importance of looking at the demand side of the economy. The Chancellor and Prime Minister have focused on just that, for example, with the cut to VAT on electricity bills and the reinstatement of the £2 cap on bus fares for 2027. My hon. Friend will also support the big focus on the supply side that the Chancellor talked about in his speech yesterday, improving the productive capacity of our economy, so that we can build more homes, labs, transport and power.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Employment levels have risen since the general election, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that too few young people are getting the chance to move into work and to participate in education. That is exactly what the Milburn report is looking at, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will feed into that. However, we are not waiting for that report; the Government are already acting. That is what the jobs guarantee is doing, and why businesses that employ young people on universal credit will receive £3,000. It is right that there is a moral as well as economic imperative to get young people into work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I really am struggling to get all Members in—it is now 29 minutes past 12, and we have not even got through the topicals list. I ask Members on both Front Benches to help me to help them.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
Fiscal decisions are taken at the Budget, but I join my hon. Friend in urging the Welsh Government to consider extending the support that we have given to English pubs to pubs in Wales.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
James Murray
As I said a moment ago, decisions on fiscal matters are taken at the Budget, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the Scottish Government to follow the UK Government’s example by providing support to pubs in Scotland, too.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that the Truss mini-Budget means that families with a new mortgage are now paying £600 a year more and the Government are paying more for our borrowing—money that we could be spending on schools and hospitals. The shadow Chancellor is the same man who at the weekend said that there were “lots of good things” in the Truss mini-Budget. With Labour, Britain is starting to turn the corner; it is clear that with a new shadow Chancellor, the Tories are turning back to Liz Truss.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I would be very happy to meet her.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Very briefly, I would like to congratulate my beautiful, long-suffering Kiwi wife on completing her citizenship ceremony today in North Somerset. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out how the Government’s investment can support the development of more local schemes for young people in North Somerset?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate his wife on what is a significant achievement; I am sure the whole House is supporting her. He is absolutely right that we want to see more young people having the income, opportunities and purpose that work provides, which is why it is welcome that employment is up. However, we do need to do more. We will keep providing national insurance relief for employees aged under 21 and apprentices under 25, and we are rolling out our youth hubs, including in North Somerset.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Emma Reynolds
We are improving funding for local government as a result of the spending review, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further. It is also obviously a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
When CoalWorks in my constituency fundraised for a defib, the charity London Hearts reached out to it. Because it is a charitable organisation, there was no VAT on the purchase, meaning that CoalWorks could afford to buy two. However, when the Kings Arms in Coleorton recently fundraised, it had to pay VAT because it did not go via a charity partner. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential impact of removing VAT on defibs for community-based purchases?
James Murray
I congratulate the organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency for successfully fundraising for two defibrillators. As she knows, decisions on fiscal matters are taken at the Budget. She makes a powerful case, but we have to evaluate whether VAT reliefs are passed on in full to consumers. That is one of the key considerations when taking decisions of this sort.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
James Murray
We are providing a 20% cut in business rates for pubs in England. I urge the Scottish Government to do the same for Scottish pubs.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
When the Bank of Scotland closed its Larkhall branch, it left the town with no high street bank. It is a problem not only for Larkhall but for nearby villages including Ashgill and Netherburn. I am grateful to Treasury Ministers for engaging with me on this issue over the last few months. What can the Government do to support towns like Larkhall and protect face-to-face banking services in rural communities?
Lucy Rigby
I want to be really clear about this: people who need in-person banking must be able to access essential services, including those in rural communities. That is exactly why I commissioned the independent review on access to banking services, which will gather data about current access to banking services. It is the Government’s intention for there to be a power in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to allow the Government to act on that review.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
In his previous role, the Chancellor demonstrated that he is a man of principle who is able to advocate for change, even when politically difficult. Where the evidence shows that Labour policies are harming businesses and jobs, will he also advocate a change of course?
Torsten Bell
The difficult choices that we have had to make are why NHS waiting lists are falling in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and why his own police chief constable said that
“increased officer numbers will enable us to further tackle issues such as antisocial behaviour, theft and drug-related crimes.”
The hon. Gentleman is a man who, unfortunately, on the day of the mini-Budget spoke up in this Chamber and said that it was a “vote of confidence” in the whole UK economy. The only regret he must have is not being more enthusiastic—otherwise he would be shadow Chancellor.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
UK Finance estimates that two thirds of all fraud cases are enabled online. Jonathan Fisher’s recent review into fraud recommended that an anti-fraud levy be placed on digital and communications platforms. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure that economic crime enforcement agencies are properly funded to protect us all from predatory scammers on the internet?
Lucy Rigby
Fraud is the most common type of crime in this country, and its impact can be truly devastating for individuals and businesses. That is why this Government are committed to tackling it, including via the doubling of the economic crime levy. The Fisher review made a number of recommendations, including about the role of technology companies. We are considering those recommendations very thoroughly.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Executive have been without a budget this year, and in the last six months the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been engaging with the Executive parties. What latitude or support has the Chancellor given the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enable a budget to be agreed in Northern Ireland, and what steps will the Government take if the Northern Ireland Executive are unable to set a budget?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am working extremely closely with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who, as he will know, is in discussions with all the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. We need to make sure that a budget is set for Northern Ireland so that the Executive can continue to deliver vital local public services.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I was pleased to see that the Chancellor was in the west midlands yesterday meeting manufacturing apprentices alongside Mayor Richard Parker. What conversations has he had with the mayor about using new devolution powers to invest in local skills and employment, and what will he do to make sure that young people in Wolverhampton North East get more local opportunities to benefit from?
John Healey
Indeed, the West Midlands Mayor, Richard Parker, is using the powers that he has, including recently by stepping in and taking action to improve bus services across the west midlands. Yesterday he stepped in to provide support for the Jaguar Land Rover workers who may face redundancy and will certainly be well placed to get further jobs.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
May I welcome the Chancellor to his position and thank him for his kind remarks earlier? May I also wish him every success, because I am afraid that under this Government we need some? He will know that if we are to fix the economy, we have to fix the welfare bill. Will he give a commitment today that at the Budget next month, he will come to the House with a comprehensive plan for how he will arrest the burgeoning welfare bill? He and I know that failure to do so will lead to millions of hard-working people and hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country facing unnecessary and unacceptable tax increases.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman sets out the challenge facing the country in the long term. That is exactly why we have commissioned Alan Milburn and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) to do the reviews they are currently doing. When they produce them in the autumn, we will look at them and act on the recommendations.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
What conversations has the Chancellor had with the Department of Health and Social Care on providing compensation to those harmed by valporate and vaginal mesh, as per the Hughes report, which was published over two years ago?
Emma Reynolds
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am working extremely closely with the Health Secretary and discussing overall levels of NHS spending—of course, the Department has the biggest budget across the Departments. The NHS is performing well, but I will take back the specifics that she mentioned.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Monifieth in my constituency is home to over 9,000 people and is the central connection point for a vast rural community across Angus. Despite an application in 2023, a banking hub was denied because the regulations are not fit for rural communities. Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss how those regulations impact rural communities and see if we can finally get Monifieth the banking hub that it needs?
Lucy Rigby
I will indeed meet the hon. Member. The issues she identifies are exactly why we had a commitment in our manifesto to work with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs over the course of the Parliament. We are well on track, with 282 banking hubs having already been announced, so we are running way ahead of schedule.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
In recent weeks, the fast fashion online retailer Shein has been valued at a fraction of its price when it listed in Hong Kong, in part due to the treatment of low-value imports in the US and Europe. With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s decision to end the £135 de minimis relief by October 2028, but what more can be done before then to level the playing field for British retailers?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of removing the low-value imports relief and levelling the playing field with high streets. As she will know, my predecessor announced in June that we are bringing forward the implementation of the measure to October 2028 to benefit high streets across the country as quickly as possible.
Falkland Islands: Sovereignty
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on comments from the Argentinian President and President Donald Trump regarding the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
As my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have made clear, the UK remains steadfast in its support for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. There can be no doubt that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they want to be. Falkland Islanders have made their views very clear in a referendum in 2013, at the United Nations year after year and to anyone who makes the effort to engage directly with the community. The UK also supports the right of Falkland Islanders to develop their natural resources for their own economic benefit. That is an integral part of their right to self-determination.
This is not the first time that an Argentine Government have made economic threats against the islanders, yet those threats have not prevented the community’s remarkable economic development over the years. The measures announced by President Milei will not change the UK’s unwavering commitment to the islanders.
The UK wants to continue to maintain a modern and constructive relationship with Argentina across a range of shared interests. However, there can be no doubt about our commitment to the Falkland Islanders, their democratic rights and the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The Government will continue to work closely with the Falkland Islands Government to defend their rights now and into the future.
The US is our closest ally. It, too, is in no doubt about our unwavering support for the islanders.
Calum Miller
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
As surely as night follows day, another Argentine President facing economic trouble at home has tried to distract attention by threatening British sovereignty. This is a President who, I remind colleagues, was praised by the Leader of the Opposition. When asked whether Britain needed our own Milei, and whether she was such a politician, she replied, “Yes and yes”. Meanwhile, President Trump, so loudly cheered by Members of Reform and the Conservatives, has also declared that the US is considering changing its stance on British sovereignty over the Falklands. The decision of sovereignty over the Falklands does not belong to President Milei or to President Trump; it belongs to the people of the Falklands alone. They have spoken unequivocally and we should support them.
The renewed threat to the Falklands should sharpen Ministers’ minds as to the mounting security challenges facing our overseas territories. The world is more unstable now than at any point since the end of the cold war, yet our threadbare Navy and hollowed armed forces are perilously overstretched. Meeting the threats to our sovereign territories requires genuine investment. Can the Minister update the House on what steps will be taken to increase our defence spending rapidly, and on whether the Government are considering Liberal Democrat proposals for defence bonds, investing in our critical capabilities and restoring British deterrence?
President Milei has now threatened sanctions and criminal charges on energy companies operating offshore from the Falklands, including British firms. That would be a direct—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Cartlidge, I let it go the first time, but you have just had three goes there. Please, somebody else has to come in and speak, and I am sure your Front-Bench spokesperson will ask the relevant questions without you having to shout down the Member speaking.
Calum Miller
That would be a direct economic attack on operations from British sovereign territory. Is the Minister preparing retaliatory measures and sanctions in the event that British companies operating around the Falklands are targeted? The Government must be resolute in defending Britain’s interests and the people of the Falklands. Has the Minister called in both the Argentine and US ambassadors to make it clear that British sovereignty over the Falklands is non-negotiable? If she has not, will she?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman is completely right that we are in a volatile world, but one thing is absolutely unchanging: the United Kingdom’s position on the Falkland Islands, which is of long standing. The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory and will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. As I stated in my opening remarks, we want a constructive relationship with Argentina, but we are absolutely clear, and they are in no doubt, about our position on this question. On defence spending more broadly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor remain committed to fully funding the defence investment plan and to meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Israeli Minister Ben Gvir has said, “It is time for the state of Israel to publicly recognise that the Falkland Islands are Argentine territory under occupation”, and that we, the British, are not merely occupying the territory but, in carrying out oil drilling there, are stealing money from the Argentine people. Does the Minister think he knows that the Argentine Government agree with him and, as a result, have filed criminal complaints against Navitas Petroleum, which is of course an Israeli company? Does she think he knows that the company was very happy to sign a deal with the UK to explore the Sea Lion oil project in the British Falkland Islands? Or does she think that Ben Gvir was just too busy thinking of new ways to inflict ever yet more cruelty on the Palestinian people?
Kirsty McNeill
We completely and utterly reject the characterisation that my right hon. Friend describes. The UK supports the rights of the Falkland Islanders to develop their natural resources for their own economic benefit, because that is an integral part of their self-determination. The decision by the Falkland Islands Government to pursue hydrocarbon production is a commercial decision for them to make alongside the commercial companies involved.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Let me say at the outset that we on the Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, and they will remain British for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish them to be. British soldiers fought and died to defend our sovereignty and the freedom of the Falkland Islanders. That sacrifice will never be forgotten, and we will always stand by the people of the Falklands and their overwhelming desire to remain British. Before the summer recess, the Leader of the Opposition and I met Cheryl Roberts MLA and other representatives of the Falkland Islands Government. We were clear in reaffirming our unwavering support for the islanders and their right to self-determination.
Our continued connection with the Falklands is of vital importance, as a matter not just of history but of sovereignty, security and principle. The Government must therefore ensure that they are standing up unequivocally for the Falkland Islands and their choice to stay British. Therefore, what conversations have the Foreign Secretary and Ministers had with the United States Administration to ensure that our position and, above all, the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders are clearly understood? What direct representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Argentinian Government following President Milei’s latest remarks? Is Argentina raising the future of the Falklands through diplomatic channels with His Majesty’s Government, or is it simply ramping up its language publicly? Argentina has threatened sanctions against companies involved in the lawful development of the Falkland Islands oil resources. What representations has the Foreign Secretary made in response, and what steps are the Government taking to protect those legitimate commercial interests and the Falkland Islanders’ rights to develop their own natural resources? There can be no negotiation over sovereignty unless and until the Falkland Islanders themselves wish it. The United Kingdom must stand with the Falkland Islands and the right of the islanders to self-determination.
Kirsty McNeill
I share the right hon. Lady’s conviction that the sacrifices of British armed forces personnel should never be forgotten in relation to this matter. I share, too, her desire to see the UK Government stand up unequivocally for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, which is exactly what we have been doing. We are in regular ministerial and senior official engagement with Argentina, which is why I can say with such conviction that it is in absolutely no doubt—and no Member of this House should be in any doubt—about the UK Government’s position. The future of the Falkland Islands is for the Falkland Islanders to determine, and nobody else.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s strong message today, standing alongside the Falkland Islanders in their desire to remain British. We have 14 overseas territories with over a quarter of a million people. May I ask that we take this opportunity to consider how we can better represent all those people for whom we as a Parliament, and as a Government, have a responsibility, for their health and education, and for the relationship between Britain and our overseas territories?
Kirsty McNeill
I can reassure my hon. Friend that work is ongoing across Government to ensure that everyone in the British overseas territories retains the full support of the UK Government. We are in regular dialogue with their representatives, and of course we continue to ensure that their rights to health and education and the other matters that he mentioned are uppermost in our minds at all times.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that in order to deter any possibility of military action against the Falklands, it is important not to send the wrong signals? In 1982 there was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance specifically, but there were also huge anti-nuclear campaigns that sent the wrong message to aggressors around the world. Can the Government confirm that, this time, they will not send the wrong signals—over Diego Garcia, for example—or any suggestion that we do not have the naval and air assets to deter and, if necessary, to defend?
Kirsty McNeill
I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are sending the most unequivocal message imaginable that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they choose to be. It is also important to reassure the House that our forces in the south Atlantic are maintained at the appropriate level to ensure the defence of the Falkland Islands against any potential threat. The right hon. Member mentioned Diego Garcia, and I want to underscore for the House that that is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. It has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years, and that is precisely why we did a deal to ensure that we could maintain the long-term operational control and security of Diego Garcia.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
President Milei has coupled his renewed sovereignty claim with an increase in defence spending and plans to expand the naval base at Tierra del Fuego. In the light of these developments, can the Minister tell us if we have updated our threat assessments, and if the Falkland Islands’ air, land and maritime defences are adequate to ensure the islands’ and the islanders’ security?
Kirsty McNeill
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his service. We are confident that the situation that we have in place with defensive capability is adequate for the threats faced.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing conversation with our closest ally, as Members will appreciate, and the United States is crystal clear about our position. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we need to invest in our defence capabilities, and of course that is one of the primary responsibilities of the UK Government. I would gently remind him of the situation that we inherited. It is this Government that have made commitments to invest strongly in our armed forces, and we are proud to have done so.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Like many, I have a close allegiance to the Falkland Islands and the islanders. As a 19-year-old young British soldier, I did my first operational tour of duty in the islands in 1990 and subsequently went back in 1992. Does the Minister agree that while the Falkland Islanders state that they wish to be a UK overseas territory, they will always remain that? To put this into perspective, in the latest referendum, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to support that position, on a 92% turnout. To put it into perspective again, only three islanders voted against.
Kirsty McNeill
I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for his service. It was an extraordinary sacrifice by him and his family, and we are deeply grateful for it. I could not agree more that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders could not be more clear and must be respected.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I do not know whether this is something I still need to declare, Mr Speaker, but I visited the Falkland Islands in 2003 as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. They have never invited me back. It was apparent then that the principle of self-determination, on which we fought and for which British service people lost their lives, remained unchanged. I have seen nothing to change that view today. When the Minister speaks with the American ambassador, might she gently remind them that in 1982 the Americans were not exactly full-throated in their support of us at that point? It made no difference then and it should make no difference now.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his direct engagement with the Falkland Islanders—I know that such engagement is always appreciated by everyone in our British overseas territories—and as a direct result he has been able to impress on the House exactly what the Falkland Islanders want, which is their right to self-determination. He mentions our relationship with the United States. Because it is our closest ally, our relationship with the United States is one of candour, and it could not be clearer about our position, which is that the Falkland Islands will remain British for precisely as long as the Falkland Islanders want them to.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
People in Portsmouth are incredibly angry about this. We waved those ships off in ’82, and so many families have a connection to someone who served. We know that 255 brave British personnel died defending the Falkland Islands, and 86 of them were from the Royal Navy. This issue is settled. Argentina was defeated and, above all, the Falkland Islanders have made their choice: they want to remain British. Does the Minister agree that the Argentinian Government and President Trump must stop this disgraceful, disrespectful interference and stop treating the Falkland Islands as a bargaining chip?
Kirsty McNeill
Can I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her work on the overseas territories, to which I know she is deeply committed? Can she please pass on, on behalf of the whole House, our thanks to her constituents for their bravery, courage and sacrifice? I could not agree with her more: this question is settled, because it is settled in the minds of the Falkland Islanders, who want to remain British, and they will do so with our support.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Sam Moody is my constituent. He is the chief executive of Rockhopper. During my time in this House, he has been absolutely scrupulous in following the laws of this country and respecting the Falkland Islanders. Will the Minister reassure him and the whole House that this Government will protect the interests of Rockhopper, whatever commercial arrangements it has in place, knowing that Rockhopper has always complied with legislation and respected whichever Government have been in power?
Kirsty McNeill
Yes, of course, the right hon. Gentleman should feel free to pass on to Mr Moody the view of this House and of the British Government that it is part of the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination that they may develop their own natural resources. We stand four-square behind them in doing so, and we stand four-square behind the companies that are involved in doing so, too.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this important question. Brave British servicepeople died defending the Falkland Islanders’ right to freedom and self-determination more than 40 years ago. We must never forget. Will the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will do the right thing and never compromise when it comes to defending British sovereign territory in the Falklands?
Kirsty McNeill
I confirm to my hon. Friend that we will never, under any circumstances, compromise on the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. I join her in commemorating all those who risked and lost their lives in the defence of that very principle.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The UK’s success in liberating the Falklands in 1982 was achieved when we had considerably greater naval resources, but it also could not have been achieved without the support of the Reagan Administration. Does the Minister not agree that that shows why it is extremely important to maintain close relations with the United States and not do anything to put those in jeopardy?
Kirsty McNeill
The United States remains our closest ally, and we will continue to engage with it while being absolutely clear with it about our position. No one should be in any doubt, least of all the people of the Falkland Islands, about our steadfast and unwavering commitment to the Falkland Islanders’ self-determination. We will continue to impress that on the United States Government.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Minister is understandably burdened by the need to be diplomatic. Is the reality not that President Trump can review whatever position he likes, and the Argentinian Government can make whatever threats they like, but it does not make a jot of difference to this country, because the Falkland Islands will remain British?
Kirsty McNeill
I can confirm that the Falkland Islands will remain British because the right of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination is absolute.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Falkland Islands are not just British. They are part of Britain, and an attack on any part of Britain would be an article 5 situation. Yet Donald Trump, when pressed on it the other day, was far from clear on whether we can rely on US support. What are the Government doing to tighten our defence relationship with European and other allies who do understand and share our belief in collective defence?
Kirsty McNeill
All Members of the House will know that we are in ongoing dialogue with our European partners, and, crucially, we are committed to investing in our own defence. That is why this Government have made such strong commitments to continue defence investment.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Bournemouth has a close relationship to the Falklands. Twenty-two-year-old Lance Corporal Christopher Charles Thomas was killed on 30 June 1982; he was of Cardiff and Bournemouth. The people of Bournemouth formally adopted HMS Phoebe and granted it the freedom of the borough; HMS Phoebe patrolled the south Atlantic after the war. I have been contacted by constituents who are outraged by the comments they have heard—in particular, I am thinking of Richard, of East Southbourne and Tuckton, who wants the Government to conduct an urgent review into the defence of the Falklands. Will the Minister give my constituents that assurance?
Kirsty McNeill
I join my hon. Friend in remembering Lance Corporal Thomas. His constituents should be reassured, as indeed should everyone in the Falkland Islands, that we are absolutely committed to Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, we are committed to their defence and we are committed to them remaining British.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Falkland Islands were British long before Argentina even came into existence, but the key is building a diplomatic ability to ensure that that message goes home loud and clear. What efforts are the Minister and other Ministers in the Foreign Office making to build that diplomatic alliance, so that we do not get into a position in which military action is necessary?
Kirsty McNeill
This is a matter of all our diplomatic relationships being brought to bear. The key is that the message goes out from this House today, loud and clear—and is heard unequivocally by the people of the Falkland Islands—that we stand with them in remaining British for as long as it takes.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), it is important that we talk here and that we have diplomacy, but what practical actions are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that there is a review of physical defence and security, so that we send a clear message to the Argentinians that they can go no further—that the words are too much, but they should go no further?
Kirsty McNeill
We are confident that our defensive capabilities in the south Atlantic are equal to the task.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The problem is that the Argentinians can smell weakness because of our approach to the Iranians’ attacks on two British bases earlier this year. Will the Minister therefore be clear that, in the light of Iranian threats to our bases this time round, we will not just seek to intercept the missiles attacking them, but attack targets in Iran if they attack our bases? That sort of signal of intent is required in relation to our overseas territories.
Kirsty McNeill
This Government could not have been clearer about the work that we are doing to defend our bases, and we will keep it up.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Over recess, I had the privilege of visiting the islands with Members of this House and the other place. There, we met the Falkland Islands Government and our British service personnel, and also paid tribute to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Whatever the posturing of an Argentinian President or an Israeli Minister, the Falkland Islands remain proudly British. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those service personnel on the islands for their contribution to UK defence?
Kirsty McNeill
I thank my hon. Friend for his visit, which will have been deeply appreciated by Falkland Islanders. I join him in commemorating and thanking everyone involved in the defence of the islands and our service personnel, wherever they are in the world.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
There is an air of total unreality hanging over this debate. Successive Governments have run down our Royal Navy to its present enfeebled state, they have conspired to surrender other British sovereign territory and we have a Government who procrastinate about signing off a new oil field in the North sea—let alone about one in the south Atlantic. Argentina senses total weakness. When will the Government step up and set out how they will rebuild our Royal Navy and meet the 3% of GDP target for our armed forces, so we can stand tall and defend ourselves and our sovereign interests once more?
Kirsty McNeill
This Labour Government will not take any lectures about how we should defend our interests and stand up for Britain from a party that has been fawning over Vladimir Putin.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
This summer, along with other Members of this House and the other place, I got to escape the heatwave here and enjoy some blessed relief in the cold weather of the Falklands, where we enjoyed the incredibly warm welcome of the Falkland Islanders. Our troops and servicepeople down there are doing incredible work and are resolute in their defence of the Falkland Islands. It was clear to me how strongly the Falkland Islanders feel that they are British, and that matches the feeling of my constituents. Can the Minister assure me that she is having conversations with the MOD, our forces and the Falklands Islands Government, to ensure that we have the right level of defence and deterrence to face this new and escalating nonsense rhetoric from Argentina?
Kirsty McNeill
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are in ongoing conversation about exactly that. I thank him for his visit; I cannot stress enough to the House how deeply Falkland Islanders appreciate it when people come to visit and can then impress on this House our unified position that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues to see whether naval assets might at least pay a visit to the Falkland Islands, with a significant platform?
Kirsty McNeill
As I stated previously, we are confident that our defensive forces in the south Atlantic are equal to the task. In terms of conveying resolve, it is incredibly important that an absolutely united message is sent from this House to partners in all capitals and to the Falkland Islanders that we are resolute in their defence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is absolutely right to say that what is behind this is the deep unpopularity of President Milei; it is not anything actually that the UK has done. It is to the credit of this House that we are entirely united, whichever party we are from, in saying that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who try to make political points to separate us actually do those who oppose us a favour, and that what they should do is say that the UK Government, His Majesty’s Opposition and all of us in this House are entirely united on this subject?
Kirsty McNeill
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that a huge disservice is done to the people of the Falkland Islands and to our service personnel any time that politicking takes place, instead of an absolutely united and unwavering conviction emanating from this House.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the Falkland Islands veterans in my own constituency and, indeed, around the country, and to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who is no longer in his place. Is it not the case that we should all be seeking to de-escalate the rhetoric, but at the same time send a very strong signal—a resolve—to President Milei, that if we are required to do so, this country will once again defend the Falkland Islands militarily and, in between that, certainly defend it economically?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman more in so far as the important thing in this debate is clarity, which is why I am saying with such conviction: our unwavering position as a UK Government in a volatile world is that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain British.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The House speaks with one voice when it comes to the Falklands being British. Like colleagues across the House, I represent many veterans in Newcastle-under-Lyme who served in the Falklands, and I thank them for their service. I am grateful to the Minister for her answers to date, but can I suggest that a Minister of the Crown gets on a plane and goes down to the Falklands to stand in solidarity with the people there as the Union flag is flown—and the sooner the better?
Kirsty McNeill
May I please pass on to my hon. Friend’s constituents our thanks for their service, too? Ministers have visited and do so regularly. We are in ongoing dialogue with representatives of the Falkland Islanders. Again, I think it is very important that the message goes out from this House that the Falkland Islands are British and will stay so.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are reviewing the military infrastructure and surveillance capabilities on the islands in response to Argentina’s announced plans to bolster its military presence?
Kirsty McNeill
As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we do not go into operational detail about our defence capabilities, but I can reassure the House that the Government are confident that our defence capabilities are as he would hope and as we need them to be.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
In 1982, the people of Chatham and Chatham dockyard waved off the boats that went to safeguard our territory in the south Pacific. HMS Medway, a ship named after our river in Chatham, is there today, with its sailors working to protect and secure that territory. Will the Minister pay testament to the hard work of the Royal Navy to defend the territory? What further advice and security can she give to ensure that we have the right defence posture to counter any aggression?
Kirsty McNeill
I pay tribute to everyone serving on HMS Medway and, indeed, all our armed forces personnel, and offer them our unwavering commitment to their protection and the protection of all British territories overseas.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Like other Members, I had the privilege of going to the Falkland Islands last month. I thank the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands and all his staff for their welcome and professionalism. While there are clearly domestic issues going on in Argentina, the cold hand of China is not far from sight, whether it be illegal fishing in the blue hole, secret missile bases in Neuquén, or nefarious activity in Antarctica. What discussions has the Minister had with European and US counterparts about dealing with the threat that China poses, given that it is in all our interests in the free western world that the Falkland Islands remain British in perpetuity?
Kirsty McNeill
As I have already stated to the House, we are in ongoing dialogue through all our diplomatic relations to stress to people in every capital—but, most of all, to the people of the Falkland Islands—that the Falkland Islands remain British and always will.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is concerning to hear the sabre-rattling from Argentina towards a self-governing population who overwhelmingly identify as British. It is not just the United States that is fanning the flames, however. Israel’s sanctioned Minister of National Security has called for Israel to recognise the Falklands as Argentinian, and its President has stated:
“Israel will act against Britain.”
Ignoring the irony of an Israeli Minister accusing another country of illegal occupation, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had on this matter with our supposed ally, which is trying to undermine British sovereignty?
Kirsty McNeill
We make clear to all our partners, all our allies and, indeed, people in every capital of the world that the Falklands Islands are British. We are resolute in that, and that position will not change.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about sovereignty, and she is right, and she will be aware that under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994, any decision on exploration has to come to this country. It just so happens that the very Energy Secretary who banned new licences in the UK will now be that decision holder. Can she rule out that if the Falklands asks for exploration in its area on oil and gas, this Government will not block it?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is an integral part of a country’s self-determination that it can develop its own natural resources for its own economic benefit. That will be a decision for the Falkland Islanders. Indeed, Falkland Islands representatives have already made decisions about exactly that matter.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is clear to the British public that the special relationship between the UK and the US is more special for the UK than it is for the US under Trump. With the US extending threats, bullying and tariff threats, it is akin to an abusive relationship. Will the Minister unequivocally confirm that Britain will not tolerate intimidation and blackmail by the US, Israel or others, and that British sovereignty matters more than our relationship with hostile states that are committing blatant, horrific violations of international law?
Kirsty McNeill
The United States is and will remain our closest ally. We have been clear with it, we have been clear with this House, and we have been clear most of all with the people of the Falkland Islands that the Falkland Islands are British.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am glad to see the Government adopting a robust posture when it comes to the Falkland Islands, but this time last year at the UN General Assembly, when the President of Argentina staked a claim on the Falkland Islands, neither the former Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), nor the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), had anything to say about the matter. I would like some assurances that the Prime Minister will tackle President Milei at the UN General Assembly later this month.
The Minister talks about the military capability in the Falklands, but I gently remind her that three of the offshore patrol vessels that we currently have rotating through the Falklands are due to be sold to the Uruguayan navy in the next 18 months, and four of the Typhoons that we have down there—the Tranche 1s—are due to be decommissioned next year. As a staging post to get to the Falkland Islands, the Ascension Island is a key location, but it is shared as a base with the US. Is she confident that the US would have no problems whatsoever with our using that base should we need to take military action against Argentina?
Kirsty McNeill
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. United Kingdom Ministers have been clear in every international forum in which we are present about our position on this matter, and I am pleased to underscore and repeat it today: the Falkland Islands are British.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her strong and resolute answers. Following the deeply concerning decision surrounding the Chagos Islands, the good people of the Falkland Islands need more than just warm words; they need iron-clad guarantees. The Minister has stood firm at the Dispatch Box today and declared unequivocally that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable. President Trump must stand by the United Kingdom. Will the Minister ensure that the international community is under absolutely no illusions that we beat the Argentinians when it mattered, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can and will do that again if necessary, and that those islands will remain British for as long as their people wish?
Kirsty McNeill
There can be no doubt in any capital in the world and, most importantly, in the Falkland Islands that the Falkland Islands are British. Their right to self-determination is absolute, and the UK Government stand as a guarantor of exactly that.
Israel and Palestine
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Palestine. I do so as a proud British Jew, someone with the deepest gratitude to the state of Israel for giving a home to my grandmother after she lost her husband, my grandfather, and 60 other family members at the hands of the Nazis. I remember visiting her in the 1970s in Tel Aviv and seeing the life and sanctuary Israel had provided. Indeed, some of my most joyful childhood memories are of picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived.
My personal story and that of thousands of British Jews is one of the many reasons why I say to anyone here or around the world who questions Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people: you are wrong, and we will call you out whenever you engage in that attempt at the erasure of Israel.
I know what the trauma of Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October meant and still means to people across Israel and to Jews across the world. It was a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population. The events of 7 October make plain the grave threats that Israel faces, and it has every right to defend itself. We should not only condemn those threats but act against those who carry them out.
Iran continues to threaten Israel and Jews across the world. We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will do more on Iran’s proxy groups. Today I can announce that we are sanctioning Lebanese Hezbollah’s financing arm, Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States. Tackling those threats is just one of the important shared national security interests we have with Israel, on which we will continue to co-operate.
I know, too, that so many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism, including here in the UK. Last week we commemorated the anniversary of the Heaton Park attack, when Jews were murdered at their place of worship simply for their religion—an outrage that was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. The everyday life of Jews in Britain is deeply affected by the climate that such hate creates. When I went to school in the 1980s, I did so without fear. Today we need to face the truth: that is not the case for thousands of Jewish children across the UK—children who have to go to a school with security guards outside it. No child should have to go to school facing that, and no teacher should face antisemitism either.
Whether it happens in our schools, universities or workplaces, online or on our streets, antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We are rightly putting in place an additional investment of £250 million for community security, but we all have a responsibility to do more. As part of this, I will in October host representatives of the J7—the countries across the world with the largest Jewish populations. We will meet in the UK to discuss the different ways we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism, including tackling online hate.
I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the state of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between that and my support for the state of Palestine—indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful co-existence, with freedom, security and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the north star of this Government’s policy and, indeed, of successive British Governments over decades.
It is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. In Gaza, we have seen the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years—death, destruction and dehumanisation on an appalling scale; a stain on the conscience of the world and of this country too. And in the west bank, we have seen the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich,
“bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.
There is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two-state solution and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the west bank. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their tireless efforts on this issue, as well as to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer).
We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine, but the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour Government have not done enough in the face of what is happening, so today marks the beginning of a new approach—an approach that not only calls out injustice and suffering, but acts. In taking this stance, I make a very clear distinction that is crucial for us all in this debate: our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the UK has unshakeable bonds; our argument is with the conduct of its Government. I also want to say emphatically to people in Britain and across the world: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.
What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians: the two-state solution. Let me start with the situation in the west bank. At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what that has meant for Palestinian communities: houses bulldozed; roads and public infrastructure destroyed; families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Sixty-five Palestinian communities have been completely expelled since 2023—a total of over 4,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions.
In August, we saw the crossing of a long-standing red line: the issuing of E1 tenders for over 1,200 homes. I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedouin communities I met in Khan al-Ahmar had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the west bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. Let us be absolutely clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable.
On top of official state policy, settler terrorism is rampant. The UN reports an average of six violent settler attacks against Palestinians per day this year—the highest on record. Let us take one example: in al-Mughayyir, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, settlers have encircled the village and mounted a campaign of intimidation, largely under the protection of the Israeli military. Families in the village are increasingly cut off from accessing their land, squeezed into ever smaller areas, and have olive trees uprooted and livestock stolen. In the same community, just last week, two teenagers were shot when settlers entered the village under police and military escort. Both died before reaching hospital. Five teenagers from their school have now been killed this year.
Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, has described what is happening as
“A violent and criminal effort…to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.”
The former Minister of Health and retired brigadier general from the Israel Defence Forces, Ephraim Sneh, has said:
“This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply.”
Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as
“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The British Government agree that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the west bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often, the Israeli Government have turned a blind eye to that—and, worse, members of that Government have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians. I recognise the gravity of saying this, but the truth is that it is the least the people who face such suffering deserve, and it should be the prelude to justice.
For a long time, the British Government have rightly said that settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements.
Our position is not just an overdue statement of reality; the Government believe that the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories. I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets, so I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime, working with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. As part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. To those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: you will face the full force of UK sanctions.
Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country. Earlier this year, shamefully, just a few miles from here, we saw an expo advertising illegal settlement land. We must and we will ensure that that never happens again, so we will ban the advertising in the UK of illegal settlements.
The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the BDS—boycott, divestment, sanctions—campaign.
The legislation I have announced today will be in place within six to nine months, and we will also take more immediate steps. Today, we are sanctioning a further set of extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities. I can also announce that we are extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including—crucially—seeking to prevent the development of E1.
I also want to address the question of arms sales. We have already suspended over 30 arms licences used by the IDF in Gaza. That suspension remains fully in place. We will now also refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation—in effect, a double lock against arms sales. That means the ban on such exports will now remain in place for as long as the occupation persists.
To advance the two-state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance, so I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform, and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues, which is frankly financially crippling the provision of essential services in the west bank. The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the Government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the occupied territories and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution.
I turn now to Gaza. The horror of 7 October appalled the world and had terrible echoes of the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people: men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated and tortured by Hamas terrorists; people murdered while seeking to protect their families; young people massacred at a music festival; and people abducted from their homes. As the 20-point peace plan for Gaza sets out, that is one of many reasons why Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. They must decommission their weapons and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure.
Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000. The vast majority of the population is displaced—nearly 2 million people—and they are now penned into just one third of the territory. Lifesaving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins.
International humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and intentional violations of that law, if proven, amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, has been examined in depth by a number of organisations, including the UN independent international commission of inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine that.
On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. That has been the case for all of the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention: Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right that this issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.
Accountability for what has happened in Gaza matters, but even more urgent is action to address the ongoing crisis, because today in Gaza the death and suffering continue. Nearly a year ago, a ceasefire was declared, yet over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since, and the people of Gaza are experiencing a totally avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that I am afraid is driven by the decisions of the Israeli Government.
Last week, I talked to courageous doctors and humanitarian aid workers who have served in Gaza. It was a heartbreaking conversation. They recounted children dying waiting for medical treatment, people forced to live next to open sewage and without shelter, and food insecurity rampant. I am sure the whole House agrees that that is unconscionable, so I pledge that we will continue to do everything we can to provide all the humanitarian support possible to help the people of Gaza.
UK-supported hospitals in Gaza will enable around 800,000 medical consultations this year and essential health services for patients. UK expertise will deliver care to over 1,000 child amputees. We recently welcomed another wave of students from Gaza coming to study in Britain, and we will welcome more. But in truth, unless Israel changes course, the situation will remain dire, so we are taking further steps both by ourselves and with others.
Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine the clearest and harshest spotlight on what is happening and what must change. With Jordan, we will convene countries across the world to lead a call for action on health and humanitarian access. We will also lend the UK’s voice to the growing global alliance of countries, led by Arab partners in the region, calling for the full implementation of the US-led 20-point plan, the rejection of extremism and a lasting end to the cycles of violence. As we implement the policy measures I have announced today, we will continue to assess the Government of Israel by their actions. We want to see a new approach in both Gaza and the west bank.
Today we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. We call out what is unlawful. We act on the import of goods from illegal settlements. We ban advertising of illegal settlements. We act on services to prevent new settlement expansion. We act on settler violence. We support accountability for what has happened in Gaza, and we pledge to galvanise the international community to confront the ongoing and urgent humanitarian crisis. Above all, we say: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor is it powerless.
Today we act in concert with others in a broad international coalition. I can tell the House that today, France and Canada are announcing, alongside Britain, that they will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements, joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—are pledging today that they will support further action. That is what Britain can achieve, leading with others, and it is in our fundamental national interest, because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world.
My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees, and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.
I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
As we meet today, let me start with what we agree on. We agree that illegal settlements are wrong. We all agree that groups of settlers have been guilty of outrageous abuses of ordinary Palestinians and crimes against innocent civilians. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have indulged in hateful propaganda and incitement. We agree that the current path is leading Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker, more dangerous future. We agree that Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October left many Jews in Israel and around the world afraid and vulnerable. We agree that the suffering in Gaza is horrific. But we also agree that those who praise Hamas and other terror groups or see them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are wrong, that payments to those who are killed while attacking Israeli civilians are wrong, and that those who call for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and the murder of its citizens with cries of, “From the river to the sea,” are wrong. Ignoring the victims on all sides and putting at risk the viability of the two-state solution is wrong.
This is not about Israel alone, and it certainly is not about reducing the complexity of the region to a single sentence. Sadly, the Government are in the process of doing just that. When they recognised the state of Palestine, only recently, they did so against the laws we ourselves have defended since 1933, in contravention of the Montevideo convention and of the principles we have set out. When they sanctioned Israeli Ministers, they failed to make the case to many others, including the European Union, and today they are enacting a policy that the Foreign Office knows will not work.
The Government also know that this policy will harm innocents. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers of this Government—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), rejecting this very policy as the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected—innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. Still this Government are pressing on in haste, despite warnings from the Labour Benches from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and from the Government’s own reviewer of terrorism legislation that turning Israel into a pariah risks sectarian division in our own country and a further rise in antisemitic violence on our streets.
As the Foreign Secretary knows, others are waiting. The Israeli election is in just seven weeks, and many have correctly argued that this action will help the extreme candidates’ campaigns, not those who are making the moderate argument for a united Israel. In the week before Rosh Hashanah and the high holy days, the Government are acting without prudence, introducing sanctions that are both light and serious. They are light because they will not actually target settlers—as the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations has said—but will be stretched to include all Israeli and Palestinian businesses, leaving many without opportunity, including those who make the pharmaceuticals that keep many British patients alive. They are serious because they risk what the Foreign Secretary has himself condemned: encouraging sectarianism and antisemitism at home, and discouraging co-operation abroad.
As such, I have six questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, on the coherence of the policy, can he confirm that the advice from his Department on the practicality of sanctions has changed so dramatically that these sanctions will in reality be targeted, not area as previously stated? Secondly, what conversations has he had with wider partners and allies to co-ordinate a full international action that might actually work, and why will he not wait for the result? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the impact on domestic security and community cohesion in the United Kingdom, barely a year since the first antisemitic murder in our country in generations? Fourthly, what assessment has he made of the impact on our security partnerships with both Israel and the United States, which have kept Iranian regime-backed murderers off our streets for the past few years? Fifthly, what instructions has he given to the enforcement bodies to ensure that Parkinson’s, myeloma and multiple sclerosis patients will still get the drugs that keep them alive? Finally, will he let us know now what instructions he has given to the Foreign Office for the accreditation of diplomats to the Palestinian embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their own envoys here under diplomatic immunity?
We have seen growing antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and we have seen increasing violence against Jewish targets. The Conservative party will always reject the hate-filled sectarianism that we have seen on our streets. We can—and where appropriate, should—criticise the Israeli Government, and still defend the right of the Jewish people to a home. I place on record my and my party’s deep sadness at the violence we have seen in recent months and years, our commitment to the right of Palestinians and Israelis to live in dignity and peace, and our recognition of those who have been victims over generations. None of us here rejects the Government’s stated aim that we must do everything we can to end the cycle of violence, and we welcome the sanctions against Al-Qard Al-Hassan and the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, I am sorry to say that this Government are wrong. As the Foreign Office has previously stated, this policy will damage the interests of innocent Palestinians, Israelis who condemn settlements, and the British people. What we reject is not the intent, but the performative politics and acting without wide support that leaves our envoys weaker and their voices irrelevant. We know, from our own history, that we do not make peace from just one side, and nor do we make it alone.
Ed Miliband
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House. However, I profoundly disagree with his conclusions. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned a number of things that we agree on, and it is important to highlight those. I will answer his specific questions in a moment, but the underlying problem of his position is this. He supports the two-state solution with great vigour; he believes in the two-state solution; he sees the two-state solution being destroyed before our eyes; and I am afraid his prescription is to do nothing about it. There is a choice that we face in this. Do we stand by? Are we bystanders to the end of a long-established Government policy, and indeed the only hope for security and stability in the middle east, or do we act? We have chosen to act, and I think that the country—most of the country—will be with us, because we cannot simply stand by.
Let me now deal with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I say this with the greatest respect to him, but the voices that I listen to more than his on the Palestinian people are those of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine’s ambassador to the UK. Both of them have been urging us to act, and have been urging us to act for a long time. I think that this is a profound point: their voices are incredibly important in this debate.
I utterly reject the idea that we want to make Israel a pariah state. I could not have been clearer in my statement about our friendship with the Israeli people, and indeed our wish to have trade with Green Line Israel, but, in a sense, we have to take a view about the occupation. If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no. The right hon. Gentleman apparently says yes, which I think is a mistake.
Is this a coherent policy? Absolutely. As I said, it will take six to nine months to come into place, and we will have discussions with Members of the House and others, but it is a SAMLA—Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—based sanctions regime. There are sanctions regimes involving a number of other countries. Will it be geographic? It will be in relation to the import ban. It will be focused on the settlements in the occupied territories, and we will absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should act with others. We have assembled a very wide international coalition precisely to act with others. As for community cohesion, it is incredibly important, but the point—the absolute core—is that surely we must all accept what I said in my statement. We can disagree with the Government of Israel. We can take action with the Government of Israel, and at the same time be absolutely steadfast in protecting Jews across Britain and across the world. We cannot let these debates be confused. I am confident about our intelligence and security partnerships, which I talked about in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about medical supplies, and so on; they will absolutely be protected.
Let me finally say—to all Members—that one fact that has been most apparent to me in my seven weeks or so in this job is that Britain is a highly respected partner across the world. Britain has influence. Britain has reach. We cannot take the view of Britain that we are powerless in the face of injustice, and today we say that we are not powerless; we can act.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At last! I am so very happy to see a British Government—a Labour British Government—finally doing the right thing and taking a strong stance against the illegal building of settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine, no longer a bystander wringing their hands. The Foreign Affairs Committee called for this unanimously over a year ago. As I look around the Chamber, I see so many people who have spent years campaigning, and there are many more outside the House. We are all smiling today. Britain has an absolute obligation to take a strong, clear stance on this issue, as a country that played such a pivotal role in the establishment of Israel during our mandate but has frankly failed in the protection of the interests of the Palestinians.
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on taking such a brave stance, and on his powerful and moving statement. I am so proud that this has finally happened; but could Ministers and officials meet my Committee and me, and some of our officials, to discuss whether we can implement these sanctions as quickly as possible?
Ed Miliband
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words, and I pay tribute to her. Let me also do what I should have done in my statement, and pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House who have been advocates of this issue—I see them behind me, and opposite me as well—and to the people outside the House whose voices have been heard in this debate. My right hon. Friend and I have had good discussions about these questions, and I look forward to working with her and her Committee on matters including the speedy implementation of the plans that I have announced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency.
Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community.
The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences.
The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended?
Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur?
This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures we are announcing today, and I recognise his advocacy on this issue over a sustained period. Let me deal with his questions in turn.
We fully support the work of the ICJ, including in the so-called South Africa case. We have previously submitted to the Court on the question of Myanmar, which I think will help inform some of its deliberations, and we look forward to the ICJ continuing its work.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the ruling of unlawfulness. That is where we have taken a view as a Government that the occupation is unlawful. We concur with the conclusions of the ICJ. It is a matter of principle what we then do across our economic relationships, and today I have announced the measures that we are taking.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary. The only provision we make now is indirectly to the global supply programme. I am afraid that those who say we should stop supplying parts to the global supply chain are actually advocating the downing of the whole programme, which is crucial to our NATO and other allies. I want to be clear about that.
Obviously, our ruling on legality is an important one. We will continue to keep all our responsibilities under review, including in relation to the F-35 programme, but I wanted to set that out for the hon. Gentleman.
We are extending the global human rights regime to international law. We think this will be another important tool that we have to take action, because the sanctions regime did not previously apply to breaches of international humanitarian law. As we set about our sanctions regime for settlements in the occupied territories, this will give us a faster tool to act, and I am very happy for us have discussions about that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must provide support for reform of the Palestinian Authority, that Hamas must disarm and cannot be part of a future Government in Gaza as part of the 20-point plan and, let us be frank, that we need to accelerate the implementation of the 20-point plan. There was some hope when the 20-point plan was produced but, frankly, the situation in Gaza is unspeakable, and the plan is not being implemented as it should be.
I end by saying to the hon. Gentleman and Members of all parties that I want to work with people across the House who have worked on this issue over a long period, so that we get the legislation right and get our action right. As much as is possible, I think we can be united on this.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome this well-rounded statement from the Foreign Secretary, and put on record my thanks to the new Prime Minister for the hard yards that I know he has put in over recent days and weeks.
It is not enough to recognise the state of Palestine and then stand idly by while illegal settlers destroy the Palestinian state and the Palestinian economy. I have to correct the shadow Foreign Secretary: he did not give an accurate representation of the correspondence between Ministers and my Committee. But when Ministers came before us on 15 July, they did tell us that they lacked the legal power to fully implement the proposals that the Foreign Secretary has made today. Can he confirm to the House that he is taking on new legal powers in order to implement the full ban that he is proposing on goods, services and investment? That is what is needed to give the measures full effect, full force and real teeth, and we know that nothing less will do.
Ed Miliband
I thank my right hon. Friend for his great advocacy and for our conversations on this issue. I can confirm that there will be a new sanctions regime that covers settlements in the occupied territories, under the SAMLA regime. That is what will give us the powers to take action on both goods and services, and he is right to say that action on both is necessary if we are to have an effect. I come back to the point that this is partly about what goods we should accept in this country, but truthfully, our trade with the settlements in the occupied territories is relatively small when it comes to goods. I believe that we can make a real difference to settlement expansion through the action on services, and we will be working to make sure that happens.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious. It is worse than stopping the two-state solution; it is ethnic cleansing.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Israeli Government could quite easily differentiate between general trade and trade to these illegal settlements? Does he agree that there is no reason, when our country fully supports the right of Israel to defend itself, why this should affect our intelligence relationship? As the longest serving member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I am proud to say that I absolutely and fully support what he is doing today, because it is about standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.
Ed Miliband
I thank the Father of the House for his words. I read his extremely eloquent contribution to the Back-Bench debate on these questions that took place in July, and I was incredibly moved by his words in that debate. He is absolutely right in the way that he talks about these issues. He is absolutely right to say that he and I consider ourselves deep friends of Israel. That is absolutely consistent with and, I would argue, necessary for what we are doing today, because there can be no security for the people of Israel without a two-state solution. The actions of its Government over the past few years has not made Israel more secure; they have made it less secure, and that should trouble all friends of Israel across this country and across the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate how important this statement is, but questions must be short. Foreign Secretary, please keep your answers short too.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the entirety of this statement, particularly the acceptance of the ICJ advisory recommendation that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The ICJ recommendation is broad and damning. It is not just about settlements; it is about taking Palestinian natural resources, forced transfer, taking Palestinian land, taking their goods and taking their businesses. It is also about stopping Palestinian trade and the free movement of people, and about imposing Israeli laws on the Palestinian people.
Has the Foreign Secretary given any consideration to moving a motion at the UN Security Council to protect Palestinian rights? Is he doing anything to support the Palestinian Authority to be able to govern effectively? Is he doing more to urge Israeli politicians and the Israeli Government to enable journalists and politicians to enter Gaza, so that we can see for ourselves exactly what is going on?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has played an incredibly important role in the advocacy on these issues, including through the International Development Committee, and I take all her points on board. One of the things that we will seek to do through events that will take place at the United Nations—not just the conference we are holding with Jordan, but other events that we will be announcing shortly—is precisely to try to get at these issues. The situation in Gaza is so urgent and so desperate that we must do everything we can to act.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this action is unlikely to affect the policy of the Netanyahu Government? As I hardly need to remind him, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Has he reason to believe that this action might affect the policy of the Israeli Opposition, and did he have any contact with the Israeli Opposition parties before coming to that conclusion?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely; we talk with all partners in Israel. I do not want to in any sense interfere in that election. The election is for the Israeli people to make their own decisions about their future. I have set out the policy of the British Government, and I have made it clear that our quarrel is not with the Israeli people, but with the policies of the Netanyahu Government. I said something in my statement that I would just highlight to the right hon. Member, which is that we will assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future whether on Gaza or the west bank.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I place on record my support for the Foreign Secretary for taking this strong stance today. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, “At last!” Finally, we can breathe, but we still cannot breathe like the Palestinians deserve to be able to breathe while they are still being occupied, and it is so welcome that our Government have taken this position. The situation needed Britain to lead, and today Britain has led. I am equally proud of our Government for taking this stance. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain needs to continue to show this leadership to ensure that the two-state solution happens and that the Palestinians are free of occupation?
Ed Miliband
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I again praise her for her work on this issue. I am grateful for the kind words about my statement, but I feel a deep sense of humility when compared, for example, with people I have met such as the doctor—a British paediatrician—who was going to Gaza to try to help children and people who are sick. There are so many people in our country who have not only campaigned on this issue, but actually gone there and tried to make a difference, and I think we should recognise them today.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many of my Jewish constituents have very grave concerns about the conduct of the current Israeli Government. However, Israel is the Jewish homeland, and I think many of them are concerned about the content of the statement, the highly political tone of the briefing around it and its timing before Israelis themselves can decide in an election—a democratic election. In all of that, the message they are getting is that the current Government no longer regard Israel as a friend, and that heaps pressure on an already beleaguered Jewish population. What does the Foreign Secretary say to my constituents, many of whom are simply giving up on this country?
Ed Miliband
I do not agree with the right hon. Member. I respect his point of view. I think we have to distinguish in this debate, as I have said, between Jews in Britain and indeed across the world and the Israeli Government, but we also have to distinguish between the Israeli people and the Israeli Government. There is a whole diversity of opinion in Israel on these questions.
I just want to say on the election, because it was raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary as well, that I obviously listened to those people who said, “Let’s wait. Let’s wait even longer.” I do not believe we can wait. I believe the situation is too urgent. Look at E1, where the tender finishes before the election. If I can put it this way—I do this carefully—we cannot outsource our political and moral responsibilities to the Israeli Opposition. It is our responsibility to decide what we accept, what we consider legal and what we do.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I am supportive of further measures on sanctions against the current extremist regime in Israel, in concert with our international allies. As we approach the Jewish high holy days, however—and to protect the religious freedom of British Jews, who bear no responsibility for the actions of the Israeli Government—I would like some assurances from him that there is sufficient clarity on imports, particularly agricultural products such as etrogim, which are a feature of the festival of Sukkot, so that there are not unintended consequences of the implementation of today’s announcements as they take effect.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question—I am glad she did—and I said in my statement that there will be suitable religious exemptions from the import ban. Some hon. Members may wonder why it takes six to nine months to bring this in. It is precisely because we want to get it right, and getting it right means a proper dialogue with the Jewish community.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have to say that I shed a tear—not necessarily at the sanctions part of the statement, but the part where the Government said that the occupation is illegal. Ever since my election as the first British-Palestinian MP, I have stood up to ask that question in statements such as this—I do not speak for the people of Palestine; I speak here for the people of Oxford West and Abingdon, but I could only ever speak for myself—and, frankly, I felt gaslit every single time I could not get a straight answer, so for that I say thank you.
Now that Britain is standing tall on the world stage again—the United Nations was founded in Westminster in 1946, and we are applying international law without fear or favour again—how does the Foreign Secretary intend to work with Members across this House so that we can all play our part in ensuring that that institution and ours stand tall forever more?
Ed Miliband
If I may say so, I find the question the hon. Member asked and what she said incredibly moving, and I am very glad she asks that question. Let me say to her and Members across this House that I undertake to work together on these questions. I know that a lot of work has been going on before I became Foreign Secretary, including with Ministers, but I think there now is a real opportunity to work together across parties, and I say from this Dispatch Box that I will make sure that happens.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I know has the support of British Jewish organisations such as Yachad and Progressive Judaism. I was with the Father of the House when, in an incident he has talked about, gun-wielding settlers came to visit us while we were in the west bank, and they had British accents, which is distressing. The Secretary of State said in his statement that this is a “prelude to justice”. Will the Government consider looking at universal jurisdiction so that British citizens who are supporting the illegal occupation will face the full force of the law?
Ed Miliband
I think we have sent a clear message today about those involved—businesses and individuals—in settlement activity. I will look at the point my hon. Friend has raised and write to him.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
This is a sad day for the UK-Israel relationship, given the risks of what the Foreign Secretary is doing. Affecting the Israeli elections by making even moderate politicians even more hawkish is a huge risk. Equally, this is strengthening the Arabs’ view that suddenly they can actually destroy the state of Israel, and indeed giving a victory to the BDS movement, which will look at full sanctions. He will know that it is very difficult to differentiate between products and services on either side of the green line, and this runs the risk of a full boycott of Israeli goods. What assessment has he made of the impact of his proposal, and what discussions has he had with his opposite number in Israel?
Ed Miliband
There were a lot of questions there, but I really do utterly reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question, which is that this is somehow about the destruction of the state of Israel. Actually, my real fear is that the path the Israeli Government have embarked upon is undermining Israel’s security. I say to him very gently that it must be possible for us as a House, at the level of principle, to understand the difference between green-line Israel—within the 1967 borders—and the occupied territories. If we conclude that the settlements and the occupation are illegal, the right thing to do is to act.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
On behalf of all communities in Glasgow South West, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their global leadership. That leadership means we call the atrocities in the west bank terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and that we continue to support the Gazans—with full fervour—with anything they require. On Gaza, he knows that many of my NHS colleagues have worked and served there, so may I ask him to continue to support them, and to provide medical aid not only by bringing children here, but by making sure there is better infrastructure closer to home?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations we had in the run-up to this statement. I make this open offer to people across the House: the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I will work with Members in the run-up to the work we will do at the UN General Assembly. We have an important opportunity at UNGA to try to make a difference with the situation in Gaza. I look forward to working with him and others across the House on that question.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his words? They were overdue, but they are welcome. More than 1.4 million people in Gaza are acutely food-insecure, yet the flow of essential goods faces significant restrictions, and Gaza is systematically denied the essential items it needs for long-term sustainability. People can buy an egg, but not a fertilised egg. They can bring in a potato, but not a potato tuber. What assessment have the Government made of whether the current interpretation of dual-use restrictions in Gaza is compatible with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises such an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East was at the Al-Arish checkpoint, where he saw supposedly dual-use goods being blocked from going in. My answer is that the way that dual-use goods are being blocked is appalling. One’s only conclusion is that it is a strategy. It is deeply disturbing. I call on the Government of Israel to stop blocking the many entirely innocent dual-use goods that could make a difference to the people of Gaza.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for lifting the mood of the whole House. We are no longer bystanders wringing our hands; we are doing something active, and I thank him for that. I met Dr Nick Maynard this week. He is a surgeon in Gaza, and it is clear that the health professions have been deliberately targeted, with more than 2,000 killed. There is even a new word for it: healthicide. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and some doctors to discuss how we can prevent this happening?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that the number of aid workers and health workers killed in Gaza is appalling and dreadful. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and I are happy to meet him and others—particularly in the run up to UNGA, but also beyond—because we need to try to make a difference.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, applaud the Foreign Secretary for finally taking some assertive, confident steps to deter Israeli ambitions in the west bank, but I am perplexed as to why he is waiting nine months. The diggers may well have started in E1 by then. So, first, can he just explain in a little more detail why he is waiting so long? He has got a majority; let us get on with it.
Secondly, has the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the Israeli Government that if this deterrent does not work, he is willing to take further steps and this is not the end of the story?
Thirdly, I welcome his embrace, finally, of the strength of international law. Does he recognise that the security of Israel, Palestine and the United Kingdom stands in the impartial application of international law across the world? Will we see a pushback against American attacks upon the institutions that underpin international law?
Finally, as part of the accountability that he has talked about, can we please have a UK-led investigation into the murder of our own citizens who worked for the World Central Kitchen? The Israeli Government have declined to conduct a criminal investigation, and officers of the IDF who were involved in that operation have been out in the media boasting that they would do it again.
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down. When one hears what happened in that incident, it makes one’s blood run cold, frankly. In the end, it amounted to a cold-blooded killing, in my view.
On international law in general, we need to uphold international law, and we say that to all our partners. On timing, let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I want to do this as quickly as possible. We have to get it right for some of the reasons that have been discussed in this House—whether that is religious exemptions or making sure that we do not hit green-line Israel—but we want to do it as quickly as possible. If we can do it quicker, we will. I look forward to cross-party discussions on these questions. The other thing I would say to him is that our extension of the global human rights sanctions for international humanitarian law breaches will allow us to act more quickly, including on some of the things that could be captured in goods and services action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Asking more than one question just denies other colleagues the opportunity to contribute.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister have shown leadership and moral courage by introducing these sanctions. I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the International Criminal Court’s case on genocide in Gaza. What discussions will he have with allies to encourage more countries to support the ICJ’s judicial process to bring about justice for Palestine?
Ed Miliband
We are strong supporters of the ICJ and the work it does on this question and a whole range of others. To bring together his question and the question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is very important that we uphold the work of these courts.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We genuinely welcome this statement. The Foreign Secretary has hinted at this, but let me be clear: it is somewhere between heartbreaking and criminal that it has taken three years and 70,000 Palestinian deaths for the UK Government to finally arrive at this position. Already, however, we are hearing that elements within the FCDO are briefing that these sanctions are largely symbolic. Will the Foreign Secretary utterly refute that? Will he confirm that these sanctions are not fixed and that there can and will be further action, should Israel press ahead with this illegal expansion programme?
Ed Miliband
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Prime Minister this Government recognised the state of Palestine. That was a major thing that we did. I praise my predecessors for that, and we also took action on arms licences. I do not completely accept the picture he gives. I do agree though, and the Prime Minister has said this, that we need to do more. That is what we have done today. I think the sanctions regime will make a substantive difference, and that is absolutely our intention. He is right that once we bring in the sanctions regime, we will, as always, keep its scope under review.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In July I led a debate on settlement expansion. I argued for international law to be respected and for the status quo to end. For far too long, we were told that a trade ban was too difficult—even impossible. For far too long, Palestinian lives have not carried the same weight as Israeli lives in British foreign policy. Palestinians deserve to have the exact same freedoms as Israelis. They deserve to live free from checkpoints, free from settler violence, free from occupation, and free from oppression. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words, his action and, more importantly, the change of direction, and for showing that Britain can lead with a clear moral compass once again. Today is one of those rare moments when foreign policy can genuinely make a difference. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that international law can and must mean something once again? Will he confirm that the ICC arrest warrants still stand and that Britain will respect that policy?
Ed Miliband
I praise my hon. Friend for her work on this issue and for leading that debate. She is right that we are big supporters of the work of the ICC. More widely, she makes such an important point about upholding international law. It undermines our reputation globally when we fail to uphold international law. If we want to build strong alliances, we need to be consistent in our approach.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Can I welcome the moral, legal and ethical thread running through the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child? He is right to talk about consensus on the two-state solution. Where there is not consensus is on the timing of recognition of a Palestinian state. He will know that eight Members on the Opposition Benches joined the Saudis, the French and the British Government in recognising a Palestinian state last September. I am glad there is also consensus, including from our Front Bench today, that we want to protect the viability of a future two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is action that is now required to reconcile those two positions, so that we have a viable state in the future?
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the conversation we had on this issue the other night when we ran into each other, which I found incredibly useful and important. He is absolutely right. We cannot stand by; we have to act. This is partly about our psychology as a country. We are not powerless—particularly when we work with others.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I stood in a farm in the west bank and saw all the olive trees burnt and all the families in the village turfed out at knifepoint, so I really welcome this statement and the step-up of action on the settlements. I welcome the action on the sanctions, on arms sales and on justice. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate a bit more on the crucial demand that Israel releases the revenues—the tax paid by Palestinian people to Israel—that are being withheld and cannot be spent on schools, hospitals and rebuilding? Can he say a bit more about what he will be doing on that?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely. These are issues that we raise with our Israeli counterparts. There are so many crises in Palestine, but this is a terrible crisis, which perhaps does not get the attention it deserves. The withholding of money, in its own way, is threatening the viability of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian state. Yes, they need to keep reforming, but Israel needs to release the funds.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. When I visited the west bank in 2022 with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), we met Palestinians whose homes and schools had been demolished to make way for settlements. It was utterly heartbreaking. The measures announced today are very welcome, albeit overdue. Will he tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies such as JCB, which facilitate that destruction—
Munira Wilson
It finances some of our political parties in this country, but not the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need any contributions from those I have not called to speak. I call Munira Wilson to finish her question—quickly, please.
Munira Wilson
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies that facilitate this destruction, given that we were told by a Trade Minister this time last year that there was guidance on gov.uk—that is all there was—and that such companies should be aware of the reputational risk?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I think she will know that as we design a sanctions regime, we do not comment on individual companies in advance, but I think my statement was very clear: we do not want to see the construction, financing and so on of settlement expansion. That is the way we will think about our sanctions regime.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the substance and the moral clarity of his statement today? Last weekend, Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, condemned Israeli settler violence as terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the widespread concern that the IDF, rather than taking action to arrest these terrorists, is all too often to be seen watching—or even facilitating, as has been widely reported—while Palestinians’ homes are attacked and their properties seized?
Ed Miliband
My right hon. Friend speaks with enormous distinction on these and many other issues, and I thank him for his contribution. He is right. I urge Members in all parts of the House to read the accounts of what is happening in the west bank and what is happening in relation to the settlers. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that members of the IDF are anything other than complicit in what is happening—episode after episode that has been documented of what is actually happening on the ground.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I join that long list of UK Ministers who have raised, at the very highest level in Israel, the most egregious practices in the west bank, designed specifically to prevent a two-state solution, only for Israeli policy to double down. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State.
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. His experience speaks to the frustration of Ministers on both sides of this House who have repeatedly tried to make a difference, pleading with Israeli Ministers to see what was going on and to act on it, and who have been rebuffed. That is what has led to today’s announcement.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I hope the whole House will join me in condemning the personal attacks and smears that the Foreign Secretary faced over the weekend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for the strong stance they have taken. Does he agree that the acts of violence perpetrated by the settlers in the west bank must be called out for what they are: settler terrorism designed to forcibly remove Palestinian communities?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world’s eyes have rightly been on the crisis in Gaza. The world’s eyes have to be on that crisis and also on the appalling settler terrorism we are seeing in the west bank. I talked about it in my statement, but the fact that a former Israeli Prime Minister described it as ethnic cleansing should give people—not just in this House, but in Israel—proper pause about what is actually happening.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is welcome that the UK is finally banning trade with illegal settlements in Palestine and it is right that we no longer condone economic tolerance for these settlements, which fly in the face of international law and the sovereignty of Palestine. But if the sanctions are to be truly more than symbolic, can the Secretary of State tell us how the ban will be enforced and how we will ensure that goods from illegal settlements are not simply re-labelled, or services concealed within contractual sleight of hand, to get round his proposals?
Ed Miliband
Like all our sanctions regimes, fines and action will be taken against companies that breach them. We are widely known across the world for the strength of our sanctions regime. It is really important to underline the point that, by using the SAMLA powers, these will be tough sanctions, and it will be absolutely clear that there will be penalties for breaching them.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Government’s new sanctions, which are the right and moral approach to the crimes we have been seeing and continue to see in the west bank. The Foreign Secretary will have seen the comments from Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir that, in response to the sanctions, Israel should recognise Argentina’s claims on the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary now make it clear that such threats will not stop the UK upholding international law and the right of people to self-determination, whether that is in the Falkland Islands or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Ed Miliband
Obviously, those comments are absurd and wrong. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is what the islanders want. Those comments show a complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the injustice and unlawfulness that is going on in relation to the occupied territories, because it is an occupation against the will of the people there. The Falkland Islands are British, as I say, because that is what the Falkland Islanders want.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?
Ed Miliband
That will be the responsibility of British businesses and other businesses that want to import into this country. I want to underline this point. That is the point of the sanctions regime we are bringing in. Just to develop the point a bit more, it is likely to be based on the postcodes of where the settlements are. Companies will have to say that the goods they are bringing in do not come from those areas.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I support the Government’s complete opposition to the expansion of E1, and their opposition to the violent settlers who put the two-state solution genuinely at risk. I just want to press the Foreign Secretary further on his comments about BDS. What further specific details can he give this House that these measures will not be interpreted as support for that movement, or indeed—following on from questions from others—spill over into a de facto ban on other Israeli goods? We know that the BDS movement is supported by people who think that the Jewish people and the Jewish people alone have no right to self-determination.
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I also thank him for the conversations we have had in the run-up to the statement; they have been important. I will say a couple of things. We absolutely oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel. This is about settlements in the occupied territories. In answer to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on why this will take six to nine months, it is precisely to get the regime right so that it does not affect or impinge on green-line Israel.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. On behalf of my constituents, I am asking him not to overlook the Palestinian healthcare workers, including Dr Abu Safiya, who are being held in Israeli prisons, and for him to work to secure their release.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises a very, very important case, and I am glad that she has done. I am happy to look at it and will endeavour to do everything I can to make a difference.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his incredibly moving and courageous statement. He has been a friend of Israelis and Palestinians. When he was Leader of the Opposition, he and the Labour party recognised Palestinian statehood, and I am proud of the fact that this Labour Government have recognised Palestinian statehood. We know that at least 17 companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements were found to hold 125 UK public sector contracts worth £2.1 billion, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that without sanctions, we will not be able to take the necessary action to protect a viable two-state solution and ensure that we see the day when we have a Palestinian state?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has been an incredibly powerful advocate on the issue for a long period of time, and I welcome her words. She is absolutely right: I am afraid that inaction is simply abdicating our responsibilities for what we see happening before our eyes, and what has been eloquently described by Members on both sides of this House. That is why we have taken this action, which is designed to make a difference and help to save the two-state solution.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The middle east and north Africa contain multiple wars, protracted civil conflicts and severe humanitarian crises. Of the 193 UN member states, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary think explains the relentless focus—morning, noon and night—on the one Jewish state, a country covering just 0.01% of the world’s surface? Does he really think that all the antisemitic, Corbynista, activist crowd, and unintegrated, sectarian, immigrant groups, will again vote for his party if he panders to their unhealthy obsession?
Ed Miliband
I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, honestly. He needs to take a sober look at what has happened in relation to Israel and Palestine, and what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. From Members on his own side, as well as across the House, he has heard the huge injustices eloquently described. My view is that we need to be tackling injustice across the world, but we cannot ignore the centrality of Israel and Palestine—both our historic relationship with Israel and our responsibilities, and the suffering of the Palestinian people. Frankly, in terms of our geopolitical interests, we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. For all those reasons, it is right that we act.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This session has been conducted with good tone and temperament, and that is how it should continue.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
All of us want to see an end to violence in the west bank. The Government should challenge the Israeli Government, but also the Palestinian Authority. I find myself asking, “Will these sanctions bring peace any closer and how will they impact Britain?” Given that other anti-Israel measures have failed to have the impact that the Government seek, what difference does the Secretary of State think this new round will make? Given our deep trade relationships in areas like defence and health, as well as warnings about possible conflict with US policy, is there not a risk that British interests could be harmed as a result of this announcement?
Ed Miliband
I think the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no. I want to correct him on one thing: these are not anti-Israel policies. This is about the occupied territories, which we as a Government, along with the ICJ, have found were unlawfully occupied—it is really important to say that. Once we decide that it is an unlawful occupation, I do believe that, as a matter of principle and morality, then other things follow about the economic relationships that we choose to have.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the statement and thank the Foreign Secretary for taking this step. Yes, it has been far too long coming, and, yes, there is much more to do, but this is a significant statement, both in terms of recognition—the reality of the unlawfulness of the occupation—and in following through, with a promise to take action to ban trade with settlements. However, does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that, in the context of now years of genocide in Gaza—ever-accelerating ethnic cleansing in the west bank, as he has pointed out himself—waiting another six to nine months to implement these sanctions is still too long? We must speed up.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Member for her kind words, and for her kind words behind the Chamber as we were coming in; they meant a lot to me. I want to do this as quickly as possible. Six to nine months is what I said in the statement, but if we can do it quicker, we will. We want to get this step right, because it is important that it actually makes a difference. It is also important to say—because it is, in a sense, the thing that will have got less attention today—that our extension of the global human rights regime to international humanitarian law violations will also help us to take action even more swiftly.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, and also for the light he has continued to shine on Gaza. He talked about the students we have brought across, many of whom I have met—they are bright and intelligent, and any country would be proud to have them as part of its future. For there to be a future, children need to have a future. The Foreign Secretary talked about the appalling death toll of children, but there are also tens of thousands of unaccompanied children in Gaza in desperate need, particularly since the collapse of the medical system. Will he tell us what more we can do to give those children protection and medical aid, so that they have the future they deserve?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for the conversation we had earlier. He raises such an important issue about the healthcare crisis in Gaza. The answer is that we want to do as much as we can as a country, and as much as we can working with others. I spoke to the Jordanian Foreign Minister on Sunday about an event that we are going to hold at the UN General Assembly, and one of the things that we both agreed on was that we want to move things forward and make a difference. I absolutely promise my hon. Friend that that is what we will endeavour to do.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the hundreds of thousands of us who have marched and met in support of the Palestinian people, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, have done so out of a motivation to bring about justice and peace for the people of Palestine? Will he specifically call on Israel to withdraw in totality from Gaza—not just the 70% it occupies now, but the remaining part that it is bombarding? If military sanctions are to mean anything, surely that must include an end to the sharing of surveillance information by the RAF overflying Gaza, the use of RAF Akrotiri and Israel’s ability to manufacture weapons at Elbit Systems factories in this country. If we are serious about ending a military occupation, then we have to play a full part in achieving it.
Ed Miliband
I want to see Israel withdraw from Gaza and I want to see Hamas disarm. That is the whole point of the 20-point plan—I agree with the right hon. Member on that. Campaigners on the issue have played an important role. The way in which young people and people across the country—not just in Britain but across the world—have been mobilised on this issue should tell all of us in this House something about the deep sense of injustice that people feel about what has unfolded. On the right hon. Member’s point about intelligence—I want to be careful on this—we are not, in any sense, helping with the occupation, but we have important and valued intelligence and security relationships with Israel.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I oppose the E1 settlement plan and welcome this Government’s action against extremist settler violence. My constituent Ruth Jacobs and others have raised with me that, with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur approaching, British Jews are facing an elevated threat, so what steps have the Government taken to ensure that these measures do not contribute to further antisemitism or undermine the security and confidence of Jewish communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and across the UK?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I talked about in my statement, through investment we have made a difference to the security of Jewish people across Britain. In a sense, we all have a responsibility on this issue, not just as politicians but as a society. I re-emphasise what I said in my statement, because it is so important: no British Jew should be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government. All of us—I really urge this of all Members—have a responsibility to transmit that message to the public, because whether through a combination of prejudice or ignorance, I am afraid that people often do not understand that lesson, and it leads to terrible antisemitism.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I also welcome not just the substance of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks today, but the tone, responsibility and commitment to a two-state solution. I know that that welcome will be reflected in my constituency among people of all faiths and none who have been profoundly affected both by what they have seen in the middle east over the past few years and by the tension they have felt rising in this country, which we have to address. What steps will the Foreign Secretary take to allow UK banks and corporate institutions to audit their own customer base to ensure that the supply chains are being dealt with properly?
Ed Miliband
We will look at all these issues as part of our sanctions regime. It is important to protect trade with green-line Israel and financial services within it as well, and that is why we want to be careful with this sanctions regime.
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s remarks, I thank her for what she said. I do feel a sense of humility. If I could just add this, Madam Deputy Speaker: as some in this House will know, my late mother, who died a few months ago, was a big campaigner on these issues, and I have thought quite a lot in this process about what she might be saying on these issues.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
May I say how proud I am to sit behind a Foreign Secretary with the courage to take this action? I thank the Prime Minister for showing leadership on this matter as well. Let us be clear what this is about: Israel’s occupation of the west bank and Gaza is illegal under international law. Israel has moved more than 700,000 settlers on to Palestinian land and forced half a million Palestinians from their homes, while the new planned E1 settlement will, according to Israel’s own Ministers, “bury” a two-state solution. These sanctions target trade from illegal settlements, not Israel and not Jewish people, and anyone who says otherwise is being deliberately misleading. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no amount of pressure from Washington or Tel Aviv would cause the Government to retreat from doing this?
Ed Miliband
I have set out our plans today; this is what we are going to do. My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these questions. We have to decide what is in our national interest and what is the right thing for Britain, based on our values.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We all deplore settler violence, but the simple reality is that these sanctions are a grave mistake. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that so many people are concerned that all they will do is embolden the scourge of antisemitism against British Jews on British streets, endanger our relationship with the United States and our security, and lead to tit-for-tat sanctions from the Israeli Government?
Ed Miliband
If I may say so, I do not think that is a very responsible way of talking about these issues. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to disagree with our actions, as I think the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) did, but I do not think he should be talking in this way. I could not have been clearer in my statement that no British Jew is responsible for the policies of the Israeli Government, and it behoves us all, whichever side of this debate we are on, to ensure that there can be no confusion about that question. I am afraid his question fell afoul of that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on not just the content, but the tone of his delivery. He has elevated the status of not just this Parliament and this Government, but this country, by ensuring that everybody—all states and all individuals—are seen as equal before the law and in terms of human rights. I specifically agree with him that we must all play our part to protect our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours and ensure that they do not see this as collective punishment. Could he give details of the next steps around the SAMLA statutory instrument?
Ed Miliband
I will answer briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will get on with the process now of making the statutory instrument happen.
I just want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s earlier point. On the day the new Prime Minister was sworn in, I happened to meet a young man—he was 17 or so—who had been at school in the UK, and he spoke to me about the antisemitism he had faced since the age of 11 at his secondary school. All of us in this House need to take so seriously the everyday experiences of British Jews, which sees antisemitism not just in schools but elsewhere. We all have a responsibility to tackle that.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench—in spite of the change of guard there—and the latecomer on the Bench behind me, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), the vast majority of people in this Chamber strongly support the Foreign Secretary in this statement today. Indeed, I warmly welcome his remarks about the need for a proper investigation into what he described as the appalling and unlawful killing of those serving in the World Central Kitchen, including Cornishman Jim Henderson. Could he say more about what sanctions he will impose on British banks and citizens who are complicit in what is going on in the west bank?
Ed Miliband
As I said earlier, when we impose sanctions on specific companies or entities, we do not say who they are in advance. However, I do not think I could have been clearer about the intent here; as I said in my statement, we do not want British companies being involved in the financing, construction or infrastructure of settlement expansion. That will be the purpose of the regime when it comes to services, and that is what we will make happen.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
While I recognise this was not the main part of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I thank him for raising the plight of British Jewish children who are fearful going to school. As he will know, a lot of British Jewish children live in my constituency, and their safety is my main priority.
On the subject of children, a recent report showed that 40% of displaced children in Palestine lose complete access to education. The Foreign Secretary has outlined a host of policies and legislation in his statement today; has he given any thought to how he would help these displaced children to ensure that they do not lose access to schooling?
Finally, if you would indulge me for one second, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that my right hon. Friend’s mother, Marion, who lobbied me endlessly when I was a local councillor, would be very proud of him.
Ed Miliband
Well, that was worth my hon. Friend getting some extra time—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend raises a really important issue around education, and an important issue around the safety of Jewish children going to school in the UK. We will take forward both of those issues.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
This Government still describe Israel, an apartheid state committing genocide in Gaza, as a strategically important partner. They announce a partial arms sales ban while continuing to provide intelligence and F-35 fighter jet components via the international pool. Whether directly or indirectly, arming a genocide is still arming a genocide. They announce a settlement ban as a dead cat, hoping to distract us from wider UK complicity. The Foreign Secretary could impose full economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel, but he refuses. He could end all arms sales and intelligence co-operation, but he refuses. He could call this what it is—a genocide—but he refuses. I will ask him directly: how many more Palestinian men, women and children must be killed by Union Jack weapons before this Government finally stop arming Israel completely?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady’s statement is a complete travesty. This Government are taking action. We are taking action on goods and on services, and we have banned arms licences for the IDF in Gaza. We have taken action across the board. We have declared the occupation unlawful. Her statement might have been designed for TikTok, but it really does not become her.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine. I also thank him for his clarity that international law matters and on who it is who is putting the two-state solution at risk: the current Israeli Government.
It is good to see the Foreign Secretary working across the world on this. We can see that we have partners in this mission, but we know that there are also those who would oppose what he is seeking to do. Sadly, we have already heard talk that there will be retaliation, particularly from Israel and America, if the ban goes ahead. Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these issues, and she is absolutely right. We are going to act in our national interest on the basis of our values. That is not just our right but our duty as a country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I join the thanks to the Government for these actions, but am deeply concerned about the fear that the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments may have caused. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that this is action against the settlements; he confirmed the continued trade within green-line Israel. Will he assure our constituents that life-saving drugs made in Israel—mainly around the Tel Aviv central area and not in illegal settlements—are not at threat, and that the supply chains for medications will not be affected by this very welcome action?
Ed Miliband
I am glad that the hon. Lady asked that question. She is absolutely right, and I can answer with an emphatic yes.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Two months ago, our new Prime Minister admitted that the UK needed to do better. Today, the Foreign Secretary has shown us how things get done, by working together with our allies to declare a ban on trade with illegal settlements and declaring the occupation unlawful. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and I were denied entry to the west bank for our advocacy in this House. The Foreign Secretary has already withstood threats and intimidation as a result of his bold, principled stand. Will he continue to do so with the moral courage he has shown us?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right about the question of access. Across the board, politicians and others are being denied access to see what is going on for themselves. That should make one extremely sceptical and fearful, frankly, of what is happening on the ground.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has said that his concern is for the behaviour of some settlers on the west bank, and I think we all share that, but does he accept that the fear of losing votes to the Green party and the independent Members on the Bench behind me is also a major reason why he is politically and economically punishing one of our allies, which supplies us with important intelligence information? Does he also accept that this will punish Palestinians, eventually lead to a total boycott in order to be effective, and lead to economically damaging retaliation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will have to cut people off if they continue asking long questions, and that will ruin their social media shots if that is what they are here for. There are far too many people still wishing to contribute. You are only going to disappoint your own colleagues. Keep your questions short. I call the Foreign Secretary.
Ed Miliband
I do not accept any of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have known him a long time, so I say this to him: how dare he try to speak for the Palestinian people instead of the Palestinian Prime Minister or the Palestinian ambassador in the UK? Why does he not meet the Palestinian ambassador in the UK and hear from him?
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary started by talking about our shared history of visiting our grandmothers in Israel. It gives him a clarity and authority on these matters that few else in the Chamber have. We would not accept goods from Russian-occupied Ukraine or Chinese-occupied Tibet, so why would we accept goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory? I still have many Gazan students wishing to come to Leeds University, as do other colleagues to other universities, and not being able to get their visas. Can we look at a visa-lite or visa-free regime for those Gazan students?
Ed Miliband
We will keep looking at what we can do for students and others from Gaza. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. He makes a fundamental point: the ICJ has made its statement on legality, and we have taken a view on legality. People can accept that or not, but if we accept it, how can we possibly defend a continued and unchanged economic relationships with the occupied territories?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his eloquent and moving statement giving his perspective as a British Jew in this awful situation. Settlers have been deliberately killing Palestinian men, women and children. They have also been killing and stealing their livestock and preventing them from grazing in pastoral areas. For pastoral communities, this is absolutely devastating, and it is simply another mechanism of forced displacement. Will the Foreign Secretary consider sanctioning the Israeli Ministers who are encouraging and endorsing such violence?
Ed Miliband
We have already sanctioned two Israeli Ministers who did that, but we always keep our sanctions regime under review. The hon. Gentleman makes a profoundly important point about the everyday intimidation that Palestinians on the west bank face—not just this year or under this Government but under previous Governments. It has been an endless amount of intimidation, and I saw it and heard from people about it in 2014 when I was there. Frankly, it is totally indefensible.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, both its content and its tone. I would like to ask about his discussions with our colleagues and allies in other countries who are looking to implement similar sanctions. The Netherlands Government announced their intention to reimpose sanctions in July and will implement them on 22 September. Will my right hon. Friend ask them why that has only taken them two months, when we are going to take eight to nine months?
Ed Miliband
I think they have a slightly different regime, but I am in touch with my Dutch colleague and will definitely ask him if we can do it more quickly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Egyptian-American author Omar El Akkad said:
“One day, when it is safe, when there is no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it is too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.”
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and many of my constituents will thank him. It is late—70,000 Gazans dead, late—but it is not too late to hold those perpetrating war crimes to account. What will he do to hold the war criminals to account?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I believe in accountability for war crimes. That is what the international courts are for.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
These sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation are incredibly welcome as a step towards meeting our moral and legal obligations. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to resist pressure from those who say that he should not make international law apply to Israel? May I urge him to push forward and demand the full implementation of the ICJ ruling so that the Palestinian people can have justice?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has campaigned on these issues for a long time. He is absolutely right about the importance of both accountability and international law. We will be guided by it.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Before the recess, a group of schoolchildren from my constituency handed in a petition to No. 10 as part of their “Courageous Advocacy” project. They wanted children in Palestine to have the same right to education as they do. Will the Foreign Secretary respond to their petition now and say what steps he is taking to ensure that their words are heard?
Ed Miliband
We want to do everything we can to help Palestinian children in Gaza and the west bank. The best thing we can do is get a two-state solution without the intimidation, threats, death and destruction that so many Palestinian children have faced. I take this opportunity to congratulate the children at the school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on being moved by this issue and advocating on it.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the long-awaited announcement, but may I press him on the UK’s existing intelligence and security partnership with Israel? Given that experts have said that RAF spy planes over Gaza and Lebanon this year have provided visuals and intelligence to the Israeli military shortly before massive air strikes, can he confirm whether the UK Government are assessing the UK’s legal position regarding the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement? I have asked his Department many times and have not had an answer.
Ed Miliband
We do not comment on intelligence and security matters, but I can honestly assure my hon. Friend that we are not involved in the occupation or actions in Gaza and the west bank. That is not the nature of our intelligence and security co-operation with Israel.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
May I join many hon. Members across the House in thanking the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for the statement and this vital change in Government policy? However, many will ask why this action has taken so long, since the ICJ advisory opinion was issued in July 2024 and ethnic cleansing and genocide have continued both in the west bank and Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why it has taken the Labour Government so long to act? Will they now fully comply with their obligations under the ICJ advisory opinion? Will they conduct a review of British policy of non-compliance with international law in Israel?
Ed Miliband
I say bluntly to the hon. Member that we should have acted earlier. It has taken the new Prime Minister to come in and recognise the gravity of the situation and the degree of public concern on these questions. We concur with the ICJ’s conclusions on the unlawfulness of the occupation and we will ensure that we abide by what that implies.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement and extend to him the gratitude of my constituents who have already been in touch with me. I have spoken before in this place about the villagers of Jayyous in the west bank who have been living under constant intimidation and fear, with farmers unable to harvest their crops and children unable to get to school. Does he agree that the statement sends an important message to the people of Jayyous and those across Palestine that they are not alone and that their calls for solidarity and the rule of law to be upheld have been heard?
Ed Miliband
I feel moved by what my hon. Friend has asked. I really thank her for the work that she has been doing. As I thought long and hard about the statement and some of the words I used—one has to weigh one’s words carefully—I thought precisely that those people who are under, for example, settler terrorism and the attempts at ethnic cleansing deserve at least the truth to be told about what they are facing. So, absolutely, this is in part an expression of solidarity with the people my hon. Friend talks about.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and its tone, and especially the fact that he referred clearly to ethnic cleansing and an illegal occupation. We have to stop the E1 settlement, which is a red line for the two-state solution, so I welcome these sanctions. Although we had been told for a long time that they were not possible, it is really good to see them today.
On the sanctions, there will be Israeli companies exporting from the green-line area and occupied territories; we will be relying on their honesty to declare that. Likewise, military hardware made in the UK might go to green-line Israel, but it might be deployed in the occupied territories. Will he explain how he can guarantee that the sanctions will work?
Ed Miliband
Let me deal with those two issues. First, one thing that I said in my statement was that the declaration on the occupation means we will now look at all arms licences to see whether they materially contribute to the occupation; if they do, they will not be allowed. Secondly, part of the point of a sanctions regime is proper enforcement, and we will do that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My father served in Gaza from 1945 to 1947, and the position was the same then: this country had failed to discharge its responsibilities to the people of Palestine. But I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the courage and clarity of both him and the Prime Minister in making it. It is broadly welcomed, and massively welcomed by the Palestinian people and those who stand up for them. May I ask him to move with all pace on the regulations that he will introduce? Since the Government now acknowledge that the occupation is illegal, surely the already granted licences for arms used in the occupation should be suspended.
Ed Miliband
I can assure my hon. Friend on his last point: all licences that materially contribute to the occupation will not be allowed. That is why we now have a double lock in relation not only to Gaza but to the occupation. On the speed of action, we want to move as speedily as we can with these measures.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I was elected to the House not just because people saw injustice or hypocrisy from the previous Labour leadership but because this topic became a litmus test of credibility, integrity and morality for the British people, who could see what was taking place in Gaza and in the west bank. I saw the attacks on the Foreign Secretary, who was referred to as a “Jew hater” when he came out with this proposal, and the disgusting comments by the American ambassador, labelling him often as antisemitic for talking about justice and the rights of Palestinians. Will he work with colleagues on this side of the House so that we can forge stronger relationships between British Muslims and British Jews, preventing those actors and agitators—even in this House—who want to sow division in our communities?
Ed Miliband
I undertake to work with Members across the House on these questions; more unites us than divides us on them, and we do need to act. I say to the hon. Member and others in the House that part of acting is upholding Israel’s right to exist and its security, which includes opposing BDS, because part of being faithful to a two-state solution is upholding the rights of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the statement condemning the E1 settlement project in the west bank and the sanctions. With that in mind, we must think of the Palestinians who are directly impacted and prevented from accessing basic health care; ambulances are being stopped from taking acutely unwell patients to hospital and 20,000 children have died. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with international partners to ensure that the aggressive Israeli settlements do not prevent Palestinians from accessing healthcare?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right: this is a heartbreaking emergency both in the west bank and in Gaza. Part of the advocacy and the work we now want to do, including at UNGA, is about moving forward on those questions and making a difference both in Gaza and in the west bank.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the general shift in mood in the House. However, given that Israel as a whole—not just the illegal settlements—is on trial for genocide, should the Government not be taking all measures in their power to prevent complicity in genocide, including an immediate and comprehensive suspension of all arms transfers to Israel, an end to the sharing of all military intelligence, an end to all trade that materially supports the Israeli state or its war efforts, a reassessment of diplomatic ties and full compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law, including those as a state signatory to the genocide convention?
Ed Miliband
I will not answer every point that the hon. Member made. We have announced a comprehensive set of measures today. I say to him—I want to be careful in what I say—that it is very important that, as I said in my statement, our action against the occupied territories cannot be about the erasure of Israel. It is important that all of us in the House respect the role of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and protect its security as part of our commitment to a two-state solution.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I, too, welcome these measures. We must see the Palestinian people protected and clear progress towards a two-state solution. I am proud of the Government’s stance. However, I must speak on behalf of my Jewish constituents, who have continually talked to me about the rise in antisemitism. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that the Government will continue to work towards greater community cohesion in this country and ensure that all British Jews and all British Muslims are protected?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely; this must be a campaign for us all. It is about government, but truthfully it is also about us as a society—in fact, it is even more about us as a society, because the Government can do their bit, but it is about what each of us as individuals do to counter antisemitism.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his action today, demonstrating British leadership on a global stage; I hope he agrees that it is long overdue. Settlement expansion is a project driven by the Israeli state. Will he consider further action such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement?
Ed Miliband
We believe that trade with green-line Israel is important. We value it and we do not believe that it should be ended. It is so important in this House that we make the distinction between the occupied territories and green-line Israel.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I have been privileged to support Bedford Friends of Al-Walaja and to meet children who, despite the horror they have endured, are full of hopes and dreams for the future. Their village’s only school is now under threat of demolition by the Israeli authorities. I welcome the Government’s action to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements. What intervention can the Foreign Secretary make to protect Al-Walaja co-educational school in the west bank and uphold those children’s rights to education under international law?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I or the Minister for the Middle East will take that up.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s emphasis on international law, which is important in Gaza and the west bank, but also elsewhere. In Sudan, people who have committed atrocities involving babies and children at El Fasher’s hospital must also be held to account. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm our Government’s absolute commitment to the independence and proper resourcing of the international court?
Ed Miliband
Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s words and actions are strong, welcome and—I know my constituents would want me to say this—overdue. Does he agree that it is incumbent on all of us in this House and, to make my wider point, across the country to always be guided in the actions that we take by the need to do all that we can to achieve a two-state solution, which is the only way to bring a just and lasting peace to the lives of all Israeli and Palestinian citizens?
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am glad to see the ban on trade with illegal settlements, for which I and many others have called for a long time. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the safety of British Jews, who are being violently targeted by racists simply for being Jewish. Will he join me in urging the Israeli Government to pull back from their expansionist actions and instead work with us and the international community towards a safe and secure Israel alongside a free, democratic Palestine?
Ed Miliband
I totally share what my hon. Friend said about this or a future Israeli Government. We want them to draw back; we want them to change course.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which will come as a welcome addition to the debate. I was proud when this Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. However, the very prospect of a single unified Palestinian state is, as we have heard, under enormous threat from the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. Having visited that area with Members from across the House earlier this year, the sheer scale of the E1 settlement makes it clear that Israel is determined that there should be no possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that anyone—and I mean anyone—who believes in a just and lasting peace in the middle east must also oppose illegal settlement expansion and the violence that so often comes with it?
Ed Miliband
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. She speaks very eloquently about this.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
May I commend the Foreign Secretary for making what I think is the most powerful, principled and important speech by any British Minister for many years on the issue of Palestine? The people of Derry understand well that it is in the moments of greatest despair that those who are committed to hope come to the fore. Will he continue to travel in hope, to hold together the coalition he has built and to do everything he possibly can to bring peace to the people of Palestine and Israel?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is just the beginning of what we must do in this endeavour, and there is so much more to do.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, Jim Henderson, was killed in the World Central Kitchen attack on 1 April 2024. Two weeks ago, the Israeli authorities said there would be no further investigation. Our Government and the Canadian and Australian Governments condemn that decision. The commander who ordered the strike said he does not regret it. What more can we do to ensure there is accountability?
Ed Miliband
I send my deepest condolences to the family of my hon. Friend’s constituent. What happened was a horrifying event. Those were people trying to make a difference in a humanitarian way to the people of Gaza. I will endeavour to talk to her, along with the Minister for the Middle East, about whether we can do more on that issue and what that might be.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and the moral courage the Government are showing to sanction trade with the occupied territories and condemn expanding illegal settlements. The Israeli state will not listen to the UK alone, and collaboration with global partners gives the strongest leverage. Will he say some more about how he is acting alongside international colleagues to demonstrate co-ordinated opposition to illegal settlements and human rights atrocities and reinforce international support for the two-state solution?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the coalition of countries that we have, as well as our actions, that gives us hope that we can actually make a difference on this issue, both substantively in relation to sanctions and on all of the humanitarian issues that so many Members have raised.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Violence and intimidation carried out by settler extremists and the expansion of settlements mean that there cannot be a two-state solution. Yet illegal settlements and outposts targeting Palestinian civilians would not happen without the collusion of the Israeli army. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that he is making representations at the highest level to say that collusion with extremist settlers must stop?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely. I say this with some sorrow: it has been obvious that there has been collusion for a long time and the collusion has been allowed to continue. That is the view of former Israeli Prime Ministers and, frankly, former Israeli generals who have spoken out on the issue. I continue to urge the Government of Israel to deal with that.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
It is 29 years this week since I first visited Israel and the west bank, and I have been a supporter of peace ever since. May I start by putting on the record my tribute to all the victims, from all sides, who have suffered during this period, not least those who suffered at the hands of Hamas and the 20,000 children who have perished in Gaza?
Although self-defence is important, it is not a green light to ethnic cleansing or to illegal occupation. We need international law, as was set out by the Foreign Secretary. I welcome the statement and the fact that he is joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is a great campaigner on this issue. While international law is threatened by many actors around the world, what more can we do to support not just justice but the institutions of international justice?
Ed Miliband
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I say more widely that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is right: we need to work with our international partners—at this time of all times—to uphold international law in Gaza, in the west bank and elsewhere.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am a strong supporter of the right of the state of Israel to exist in security and prosperity and of the state of Palestine to exist in security and prosperity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve that, it is essential that the very welcome measures he has outlined take place at pace? We can demonstrate that the state of Israel, under the current Israeli Government, does not get to determine the destiny of the west bank and, for that matter, Gaza.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say to Members of the House that while I am critical of the current Israeli Government, this occupation has become entrenched over a long period. We have to work to unwind it and find ways in which we can get back to a two-state solution, and we have to act urgently.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his moral leadership today. Since I came into this House, hundreds of Gloucester residents have told me that the Government could and should be doing more in the light of the atrocities in Gaza and the west bank. That is a point I have made in this House and to Ministers directly, and I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for acknowledging those concerns today and for going further. Does he agree that this shows that the Government are not just going to show warm words in the light of these atrocities, and that they are going to take action to uphold the values that we hold dear?
Ed Miliband
My hon. friend raises a really important point, which is that this issue has mobilised ordinary British people right across our country. It is really important to understand that. The immorality of what is happening has stirred the conscience of millions of people across our country, and it is right that we act.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Palestinians in the west bank have told the world of being held at gunpoint, of blockades, and of searchlights and lasers being shone into their homes and at their livestock. Given that the integrity of the E1 zone is essential for a two-state solution, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community should do whatever it can to prevent settler occupation, and that settlements constructed there should be dismantled as part of the peaceful future that we all want to see?
Ed Miliband
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. E1 crossed a long-standing red line for the international community, which is why we saw such an outpouring from our allies. He is absolutely right about the urgency of acting.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement and the manner in which it was delivered. I want to ask about international collaboration and how the allegations of war crimes can be addressed and compiled so that those responsible can eventually be brought to justice. I am thinking not only of the situation in Gaza and the west bank, but of the actions in southern Lebanon. Can the Foreign Secretary illuminate me on the plans to ensure that the allegations of the alleged crimes are properly compiled?
Ed Miliband
This is something that we work on with the courts, and the most important thing is upholding the role of both the ICC and the ICJ in these processes. They are incredibly important institutions, in the view of the British Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In thanking him for his patience, I call Douglas McAllister.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
During the debate in this House on 9 July, I and other Members raised our concerns about charities working in the illegal Israeli settlements and, in particular, about the use of taxpayers’ money through gift aid contributions to those charities. As a result, I received a response from the Charity Commission for England and Wales sharing those concerns about the potential impact, including on public trust and confidence in the charity sector, of charities being seen to actively assist in the development or expansion of illegal settlements in Palestine. What more will the Foreign Secretary do, in the light of today’s statement, to ensure that gift aid is not given to organisations linked to Israeli settlements?
Ed Miliband
I will undertake to look at that issue. We are very clear that we do not want to see illegal settlement expansion, so I promise to look at this. I want to take this opportunity to thank all Members of this House for their questions, and I reiterate my undertaking to work with Members across Parliament as we take forward these issues.
Online Safety
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the next steps that this Government will be taking to protect children online. This Government’s ambition is to be the world leader in shaping an online environment that works for us. We intend to be an active Government that will help to create an online environment that is not just safe, but enabling and empowering. That starts with fixing the fundamentals, and this House can expect to see us acting more quickly and more decisively from now on to keep us safe online.
In December last year, the Government published their action plan to tackle violence against women and girls. I would like to put on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who are here today, for their clear ambition and determination that the UK would become the first country in the world where it would be impossible for children to take, share or view nude images online. In June, the Government challenged industry on a three-month timeline to work with us and set out road maps for how they would strengthen device-level protections for children with a view to preventing children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets.
Today I can update the House on the progress that has been made and the next steps that this Government will take to protect children. Since June, officials from my Department and the Home Office have overseen an unprecedented work programme with Apple and Google, working with senior leaders and engineers to explore new ways of preventing child sexual abuse and strengthening protections for children online. I can report that, following this engagement, Apple and Google have provided the Government with significant commitments. Both companies have developed meaningful changes at operating level to make it harder for children to share nude imagery. We have seen progress in the blocking, not blurring, of nude imagery on underage devices, and this builds on significant milestones already in implementation, including Apple’s roll-out earlier this year of operating system-level age assurance and tighter safety features preventing a child from receiving or sharing nude imagery on iMessage or FaceTime. These proposals are a step in the right direction. However, the truth is that they do not meet the scale of this crisis.
Children are facing unacceptable levels of sexual harm online. They are being groomed, coerced and manipulated into creating and sharing intimate images across online services. The Internet Watch Foundation believes that 91% of these images are self-generated by children. They are used for blackmail and sexual extortion. Each year, around 9,000 child sexual abuse offences involve an online element, with under-18s the subject of almost a quarter of online blackmail. I challenge anyone to listen to those statistics and come to the conclusion that the internet is a safe place for kids or that the Government should not get involved.
This is not the first time in history that new forms of technology have up-ended society, but what is unique to this moment is that the technology has been developed almost exclusively in the private sphere. I am clear that there is a central role for Government in shaping that technology for good, not just to protect from harm—although that is a basic obligation of any Government—but to enable and empower.
When it comes to the development of technology that affects our lives, we are not neutral. In no other walk of life would we tolerate this crisis harming our children, and we will not tolerate it online. For too long, technology companies have failed to protect children from some of the worst harms. To be frank, I am not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that progress will continue at the pace we need it to, while harm is being done now.
For that reason, I make the following announcements to the House. First, the Government today commit to introducing primary legislation to require major tech platforms to build in device-level protections for children. We will introduce the legislation to Parliament as soon as we can, recognising the urgency of the issue while ensuring that we work with colleagues across the House to get it right. We want to see movement on this quickly. If platforms in scope of the draft legislation develop and implement technical solutions while our work is ongoing, we will of course reassess whether legislation is necessary. We know that this is a sector that can, when required, innovate at an extraordinary pace when the chips are down.
Alongside the measures on devices, the Government will, as soon as possible, require that apps used by children prevent children from accessing or sharing nudity. We will explore what legislation is needed to implement that commitment, with a view to moving as quickly as possible. This will ensure that the whole ecosystem changes, tackling the means by which children are most often abused or groomed online. Put simply, we will give tech companies the chance to lead; we will not give them the chance to lag.
These measures, taken together, will make Britain the first country in the world to go this far, and a world leader in online safety. The message we are sending to tech companies is clear: planning must now become implementation, and progress must translate into protections that make a real difference to children’s lives. I give my commitment to all Members of this House, and to anybody listening out there in the country who has been desperately worried about what is happening to our children online, that when it comes to children’s safety, we are not, and never will be, bystanders. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is heartening that she so clearly recognises the seriousness and urgency of the child safety issue before us. I welcome the spirit of today’s statement in two capacities: as shadow Secretary of State and as a mother. Every parent wants to know that, when their child inevitably picks up a phone, they have done everything reasonably possible to protect them from exploitation, abuse and harmful content.
We should take a moment to remember children such as 16-year-old Murray Dowey, who took his own life just hours after being tricked into sending an intimate image online. No young person should ever be put in that position, and no family should ever have to endure such a tragedy. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on device-level protections, particularly the commitment that children will be prevented from taking or sharing nude images on their devices. That is a huge practical step, which has the potential to prevent immeasurable harm.
I remember raising device-level protection from the Back Benches before summer recess, so I am pleased that this work is being pursued. But although the good intent is clear, the execution is often more challenging, so I would welcome more detail on the Secretary of State’s plans, including on what exactly can be done to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility in this space.
Before recess, the Government set technology companies a clear three-month deadline. Ministers said that if sufficient progress was not made, they would act. The Secretary of State’s assessment today is that progress has not been good enough, so the House now needs to know exactly what will happen next. We have heard a commitment to primary legislation, but “as soon as we can” is not yet a timetable. When does the Secretary of State expect to introduce the legislation? She has also said that the Government may reassess whether legislation is necessary if companies make sufficient progress in the meantime. What precisely would constitute sufficient progress and who will make that judgment?
I would welcome clarity on the devices themselves. Is the aim for these planned protections to apply only to new phones and tablets, or will companies be expected, wherever technically possible, to push them through software updates to devices already in use? Millions of phones are in young hands at this very moment. Protecting only the next generation of devices would leave a large gap. Where older devices cannot support these measures, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the scale of that problem?
The Secretary of State also said today that
“there is a central role for Government in shaping…technology for good”.
It is a very broad proposition, and I hope that she can reassure the House about exactly what she means by it. The Opposition want to see device-level protection and support further exploration, but it is just one part of a far larger picture. I pay tribute to the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has led the charge by the Conservatives for stronger online protections for children. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we have relentlessly pushed for restrictions on social media for under-16s. To be frank, the Government got to the right place in the end, but we did have to drag them kicking and screaming. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the under-16s social media restrictions remain on course for early 2027, and that the necessary age assurance and enforcement arrangements will be ready in time?
There is considerable common ground across this House. We want parents to be more empowered, children to have stronger protections, and technology companies to take responsibility for the content they display to young people. I look forward to working constructively across the House with the Secretary of State and the Ministers towards these worthy goals.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member for the way that she has engaged with these proposals. I will try my best to briefly answer as many of her questions as possible. First, on the detail, I have instructed my officials today to begin working up legislation. I appreciate that it is frustrating when a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says, “We intend to do this imminently”—the hon. Lady’s party has been in government; they understand the difficulties—but I want to reassure her and the whole House that we intend to do this without delay. The only reason there is not a firm timetable at the moment is because we are the first country in the world to do it. There are a number of questions, some of which she posed, which we need to iron out to ensure that we get this right.
On what would constitute sufficient progress that would rid us of the need to introduce legislation, I would much rather the technology companies move at pace to meet their own social and moral obligations, but in the absence of that, the Government will step up and act. Frankly, if we were able to reach a situation very quickly, which we should be able to do with the right will, where children were not able to take or share nude images, then the problem would be solved. But I have to say, based on what I have seen in progress over the last three months, it is almost certain that we will be legislating in this area.
The hon. Lady asked about which devices. It is phones and tablets at a minimum, but I accept the point she makes, and we are exploring whether it is possible to extend this to other forms of technology.
The hon. Lady asked what I meant when I talked about shaping technology for good. I am a big supporter of the action we are taking on social media for children. I say this as the mum of an 11-year-old and someone who is going through it at the moment and trying to help navigate that; I know all parents across the House will recognise the challenges. I would love us to get to a situation as a country where all people, including children, can be online and find good, trusted information and things that help them to be creative, to feel empowered and to enable them to live the richer, larger lives that they want to live. I think the Government have a right and proper role in helping that to happen. One of the ways in which we are already doing that, building on the great work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), is in trying to use gov.uk as a pioneering service that really does help people to live better lives.
The hon. Lady says that this Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing this. Her party was in government for a very long time, and the amount of time it took them to try to introduce any legislation in this area at all was quite shameful. That is not to downplay the role that some members of the Conservative party played in ensuring that we got there, but if it was not for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West, I do not think I would be standing here today in a position to make this announcement. We should give credit where credit is due: this is a Government who are leading the world in keeping children safe.
The last thing the hon. Lady asked me about, which I know many colleagues are concerned about, is the social media ban that we announced earlier this year. I can reassure the House that we do intend to stick to both the spirit and the letter of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West set out earlier this year. We are on track to meet the timetable that she set out, to lay the first regulations by the end of this year and for the ban to come into force in the spring of 2027. We also intend to go somewhat further than our initial proposition statement, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk with the hon. Lady in more detail about that.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I really welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend today. It will, indeed, be a world first to take this action on device-level protections, protecting children right across the country, and I am very proud to be part of a party and a Government who are doing that. I also thank her for confirming that the vote on the ban on social media companies providing their services to children under 16 will take place this year, for the ban to come into effect early next year. Could she say more about the timetable for other proposals that were made on AI chatbots, overnight curfews and bans on doomscrolling for older children? Together, this package will make the world a safer, better place for children online—that is as well as the work we are doing offline.
Lisa Nandy
Once again, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and thank her so much for all her support both when we worked together in government and since; she really is a class act.
I am not in a position to give a firm timetable for the measures that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I will commit to coming back to her with one, because I understand that Members across the House will want to know that there will be no delay in taking action on those things. We are also looking at a more comprehensive system, very much in the spirit of the reforms that she set out earlier this year, and we intend to move quickly on that without delay. I do not think we will be in a position to do the whole package by the end of the year, but I would be very disappointed if we had not made enormous progress by then, including meeting the commitments that she set out. I would be particularly disappointed if, by this time next year, we did not have a much more robust and comprehensive package of measures in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
When the last Prime Minister gave tech giants three months to voluntarily implement technology that would prevent children from taking and sharing nude images, the Lib Dems were clear that we should not rely on the good will of companies that have repeatedly put profit before children’s safety, and I am pleased to see today that the Government agree with us. The need for action cannot be clearer. In 2024, 91% of online child sexual abuse reports involved self-generated content from children online, and last year there was an 8% rise in child sexual abuse image offences across the UK. These are not just statistics; they are real children being exploited online.
This is a serious problem that urgently demands serious legislation. That is why the Lib Dems welcome today’s announcement of primary legislation that will require device-level and app-level protections for children online. However, this House has heard the phrase “as soon as possible” many times before. I hear what the Secretary of State is saying about a timetable for legislation, but what she said earlier slightly hinted that what the tech giants were doing might affect the progress of the legislation, so I seek reassurance that legislation will be ploughing forward regardless of what those companies are doing.
The Lib Dems are supportive of legislation to protect children from abuse online, but protection cannot come at the expense of privacy. Any legislation that is brought in must be accompanied by guarantees that technology will be highly effective and preserve privacy. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?
Too often, the Government have left tech companies to mark their own homework. I am glad that today they have decided enough is enough, but this announcement could have been made three months ago. If we truly want to protect our children, we need a Government who act before harm is done, not a Government who wait until it is too late. I hope that will be the case going forward, as the Secretary of State has intimated.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for these measures. She asks me a number of questions. Will the legislation be developed regardless of the action taken by companies? Yes, it will—my officials have begun drawing up that legislation today. Both she and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) raised specific issues. We will want to discuss those issues with Opposition parties and colleagues on the Government Benches to ensure that our response is right, and privacy is one of those issues. It is not our intention to ignore or sideline the privacy concerns, and we believe that it is perfectly possible to do this without encroaching on privacy in any way.
There is a particular challenge around end-to-end encrypted services, which the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) will be aware of. I would welcome cross-party discussion about that; we have a number of potential solutions that we are currently exploring, so it would be good to discuss the matter further with her.
Finally, the hon. Lady heard what I said about acting quickly and more decisively. Many colleagues will know that before I came to this place, I worked with children and young people. Keeping children safe is the first and most basic responsibility of any Government, and I am very pleased to hear such broad consensus on that across the House.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
This statement and the previous one are about the two things that I have previously resigned over, so I feel that my moral compass is back. [Laughter.]
First and foremost, I want to help out my right hon. Friend. To those who are concerned about the timeliness of this statement, let me say that the original statement may have had a timeframe in it, and I found in my negotiations with her that that was not quick enough. Actually, “as soon as possible” is quicker than what was going to be suggested, so I have every faith that she will do this quickly.
I want to stress the importance of the “take” element; there is no privacy issue if we just stop children taking images in the first place—the image will not exist to be able to go anywhere. But the take is the thing that the tech companies, for some reason, are faltering on. It is the most important thing to stop children being abused and groomed. Addressing that element will move the market away from our children here in the UK; they will not be able to use their phones for that terrible market of sexual abuse any more than they will be able to use them to make toast, because that will not be what they are for. When we remove the UK market, though, we will send the market somewhere else in the world. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to work with partners across the world to ensure that while we lead the world, we are not standing alone for too long.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes a typically well informed and well thought-out point. I thank her not just for her support, but for all the work she has done to ensure that we have got here. I know that she is appreciated not just by me, but by many of the incredible, brave families who I have had the privilege to get to know over the last few weeks and who have wanted to see action in this space for a very long time. I pay tribute to those families as well as to her. She has made an important point about working with Governments and other partners across the world to keep children safe. That is the promise of the UN convention on the rights of the child. A child harmed anywhere means that children can be harmed everywhere, and we have to take that really seriously.
My hon. Friend should be encouraged—and I suspect that she is—by the fact that many Governments are now acting more decisively. They are stepping up and recognising that the development and regulation of new forms of technology cannot be left to the private sector alone. There is a clear role for active, empowering Governments working in this space, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I have not hesitated to reach out to like-minded Governments across the world to see what more we can do together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I also warmly welcome this announcement. The sheer number of young people whose lives have been impacted by this issue is a damning indictment of a collective failure to keep children safe. Let us not forget that major tech companies have the capability to implement device-level controls but have chosen not to do so. As far as I am concerned, it is simply unforgivable that those companies innovate quickly on new products, yet so slowly on children’s safety. Given Ofcom’s sluggish implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, can the Secretary of State explain to me how compliance with this policy will be monitored, and what sanctions will be available to address non-compliance?
Lisa Nandy
At the risk of spending the entire duration of this statement paying tribute to absolutely everybody, I thank the hon. Lady and her Committee for the work they have done on this issue, and that she has done in particular. I agree with her that it is a damning indictment if a country does not step up to keep its children safe, and I hope she is reassured by what she has heard today.
The hon. Lady has asked a specific question about how this policy will be enforced, and I have heard loud and clear the concerns from across this House about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act. Before she left office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) appointed a new chair of Ofcom, and specifically tasked Ofcom with stepping up its enforcement work; I have picked up the baton on that work, and I continue it.
When it comes to this specific issue, we are looking in particular at the making and selling of devices here in the UK that do not have technology enabled to prevent children from taking and sharing nude images. We are also looking at what we can do in relation to particular apps, especially where highly verified age assurance does not apply, to make sure that we close every loophole. Given that we are the first Government in the world to do this, the way I would describe it to the House is that we are taking a major problem—a crisis—and trying to come at it from every single angle in order to keep children as safe as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to develop the detail.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this major step forward—it is a massive intervention in this space. She has rightly given the industry time to think about how it is going to approach these issues, but we cannot wait forever. Time is of the essence, and our young people are being put at risk every single day, so can the Secretary of State assure the House that while this legislation is being developed and while we look at the issues around it, the Government will continue to press these companies to act with the urgency and sense of moral leadership that they should be acting with?
Lisa Nandy
Overnight, I was thinking about how to address the House on this issue. During the financial crash, there was a live debate about the moral and social responsibilities that companies have to citizens, to one another and to all of us. I think we have slightly lost that part of our public debate. Working with some of these companies, I have been struck by how seriously they take those obligations. I want us to bring back that sense that we are all in this together—that we all have a responsibility to keep children safe—and given that these are some of the most innovative, fast-moving and successful companies in the world, it cannot be beyond our collective wit to do this more quickly. Frankly, I do not think we should be in a position where a Secretary of State is standing at the Dispatch Box and announcing that we have to legislate in order to uphold our responsibilities to our own children; but, like I said, if we have to, of course we will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind Members that these exchanges will be followed by a ten-minute rule motion and a debate on the Health Bill? I am therefore aiming to end them at about 4.30 pm.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act. I think she knows that I sympathise with the Government in respect of the complexity of this legislative area and the challenge that they face, but she may also know that my ongoing concern has been the compatibility of the individual measures that the Government may take with the ongoing responsibilities of these companies under the Online Safety Act. Would she be prepared to meet me to discuss that in a little more detail?
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Children are being exposed daily to horrific, violent content online. Ofcom’s own research shows that nearly a quarter of 11 to 17-year-olds have seen violent content in just four weeks, and nearly three quarters have seen harmful content of some kind. The number has barely moved since the Act’s child safety duties came into force. Much of this content is not even sought out, but is served up by algorithms as children scroll. We know the pattern: cruelty to animals first, then violence against people, desensitising a generation and, for some, opening a path to real violence and criminality. Primary legislation to enforce all this at the app and device level is welcome, but we need to give Ofcom the tools that will enable it to deal with this immediately, as it becomes an issue.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right. Let me say to him, as someone who shares his concern about the increase in exposure to violent content to very young children, that we are also looking at the issue of chatbots and strengthening the law to ensure that we protect children better from all these different forms of exposure.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I welcome these actions on child online safety, and the Minister’s comment that there is a role for the Government in shaping technology and not being neutral on online harm. She may have seen, in the last 24 hours, some very disturbing posts on Meta and X in which the identities of brave rescuers from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have been revealed. In response, charities such as the RNLI are now having to ask people to take real action on their personal safety and their privacy. What more can the Government do to hold tech companies to account and take down posts that put the safety of children and adults at risk through doxxing?
Lisa Nandy
I have had an initial discussion about this with some of the tech companies. As the hon. Lady will know, as well as the horrific incidents that she mentioned, there has been a campaign by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers relating to the way in which shop workers have been targeted. The Government are concerned about this, as am I personally, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to see what more we can do.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
May I place on record my heartfelt appreciation of the dignified leadership that the parents and family of my constituent Murray Dowey have shown on this issue? Will the Secretary of State say more about the ongoing conversations that she will have with tech companies while the primary legislative clock is ticking, so that they know we expect them to tackle this issue with the same speed of innovation that they show in bringing new products to market when profit, not safety, is the goal?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and thank him for being such an outstanding advocate for them. He will have heard what I said about ongoing discussions with tech companies. We ought to be moving quickly on this, and it ought not to require primary legislation, but given the lack of progress, I think it only right for the Government to step up. We do, however, want to see faster progress, and I think that many of the tech companies will have noted the strength of feeling throughout the House about their own responsibilities in this regard.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Children are facing unacceptable levels of sexual harm online, and they need protection. When the Government do the right thing, I will say so, although it has taken them rather a long time to get to the right place.
Many children use older phones handed down by family members. How will the Secretary of State ensure that children using devices with older operating systems are fully protected?
Lisa Nandy
We have been discussing that as a Department, and it is something that officials are currently exploring. I am very familiar with what the hon. Gentleman says: many children will be using older devices. We think there may be some solutions to this, but I am very keen to work with colleagues from across the House to address some of these issues.
Although we will not hesitate to take the action that we need to take or to take action where it is needed, as I said to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), we are trying to come at this issue from lots of different angles to ensure we close loopholes one by one, and close as many as we can at the same time. Part of that is about the action that we are taking not just on the taking of nude images—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) said, that is the most central part—but on the sharing of nude images. Even if a child has an older device, the protections that we are bringing in around the sharing of nude images will take effect immediately.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
As a parent, I can understand the anxiety that Gloucester parents have about keeping their children safe online, so I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement. Given the financial resources that the tech companies have and the innovative, brilliant minds that they have working for them, will she reassure the House that she will not accept any argument that it is too expensive or too difficult to stop children being able to take nude images and send them to people?
Lisa Nandy
I strongly support that; frankly, there is no excuse. My hon. Friend mentions the anxiety that many families feel. I have worked with the outstanding organisation that is the NSPCC, and with Childline, for many years, as has the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson)—we used to work together many years ago. This particular form of abuse is happening in families’ homes. It is often happening in children’s bedrooms while their parents are in the house, but it is not known to them. There is something particularly frightening about that for many parents. Speaking for myself, I find it particularly disturbing. Having worked with bereaved families for just a few weeks, I have been struck by how hard they have found it to come to terms with that element of this issue. They did not know that it was happening, even though at times it was happening under their own roofs.
Once again, I pay tribute to all the families who have campaigned so long and hard to make this happen. I give them my commitment that we will work with them and not hesitate to continue to innovate and to take the steps that we need as the technology develops.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I first raised the issue of self-generated images in Parliament more than four years ago. I have asked almost every single Culture, Media and Sport team about the issue of livestreaming. I am pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that action is being taken, and about the belt-and-braces approach that is coming in. Even though we will have a social media ban and there will be device-level protections, I would like to see children’s accounts banned from livestreaming, regardless of whether it involves nude images, because so much of that can be held over children for the purposes of blackmail or abuse. I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State reassured me that that action will be taken, as well as the other actions that are moving ahead.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for being such a long-standing campaigner on this issue, and I am sorry that it took many Secretaries of State before we were able announce this. I am really committed to looking at the issue seriously. I will go away after this statement and ask my officials to come back to me on it, and then I will reach out to her so that we can have a proper conversation about it.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. We have a massive crisis of digitally enabled child sexual exploitation in the UK. As an illustration, there is a global industry for livestreamed abuse material from the Philippines. The UK is the second largest global consumer and is second only to the US, which is a much larger country. The abuse extends beyond our borders. It extends to adults as well as children on adult devices, and it extends to interfaces as well as content. We will need a broader approach. The Secretary of State is right to identify that technology has disrupted society before. In such cases, we have seen massive expansion, harm and then regulation, and then moved to product safety. I have been working with experts and innovators on how a product safety approach might work. Will she meet me to discuss that?
Lisa Nandy
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. We have talked a lot about the tech companies in relation to this, and it is right to do so because there are obligations that must be met, but there is also traditional law enforcement, and we need to ensure that we do not let the individuals causing harm to children off the hook. The Home Secretary has been incredibly supportive of working hand in glove to ensure we deal with this from every angle.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I also welcome the statement. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State shared with the House a little bit about how the highly efficient age assurance system actually works. In particular, I confess to the fact that over 60 years ago my parents, recognising that my sister and I were rather precocious readers, lent us their tickets to the senior library, rather than the junior library where we were confined. What would there be to prevent a parent choosing to allow a child to use their phone under their identity, and would there be a penalty for doing so?
Lisa Nandy
We are not envisaging imposing penalties on parents. However, the right hon. Member is right that, as we are already anticipating, with any system we introduce there will be people who find ways to get around the safeguards we put in place. That is one lesson we have learned from the pioneering approach taken in Australia. When I say to the House that we intend to move more quickly and more decisively, it is precisely for those reasons. We will have to keep revisiting the safeguards for children in this space to ensure we close loopholes.
On the highly effective age assurance, companies are already rolling this out, including through iOS 26. This requires someone to have a form of ID to prove their age. At the moment, as all parents will know, most of the apps and sites that children use just require them to either tick a box to say that they are over the age of 18, or to put in a birth date. They do not require them to show a form of ID—a credit card or some other form of ID. The new systems are requiring that, and one lesson we have learned from looking at what happened in Australia is that unless we do that, most children will find a way around.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement, but also for her personal decision to leave Elon Musk’s X. I left the platform over a year ago because I did not want to have any association with a platform whose founder has consistently called for civil war in our country and that amplifies extremist content. When she sits around the Cabinet table, will she make the case to her colleagues that there are many ways we can reach our constituents by social media, but we do not have to play by Elon Musk’s rules?
Lisa Nandy
I think this is a personal decision, and all Members of the House should be free to decide how and where they communicate, but for my own part, I did not want to encourage more people to a site that I think has become more of a force for harm than for good.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements. As she said, she and I have worked together on children’s issues for many years, so I know how committed she is, but may I press her a little further on AI companions? We know that they can expose children to inappropriate sexual content, even when safeguards are in place. While the Government announced earlier this year a ban on sexualised AI chatbots for under-18s, it remains unclear how these will be defined and how any such a ban will be enforced. Can she provide any clarity on that work, and whether the legislation she is announcing may be broadened to cover that issue?
Lisa Nandy
This is a live issue and it is very much at the front of my mind. Over the last few months, I have been working with campaigners and Members of this House and the other place to ensure we get this right. With some of the protections previously asked for, particularly in relation to offences involving creating AI companions and chatbots that fulfil particular functions, I think recent developments have shown that that approach may have its limitations. She will be aware of the recent case in which an AI system was able to escape its own sandbox and the parameters set for it, and caused damage. We are looking at strengthening our approach in this area, because at the moment there is a great big gap where there is no liability for the output from those AI systems. We urgently need to resolve that major gap in our child safety protection system. It is not straightforward to solve, but we are determined to get on the front foot on this. As I have said to other Members of the House—I say it particularly to the hon. Lady, given our history—I am very happy to talk about it with her further.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the Ministers before her who have laid out some of the tough language and now the tough legislation that we will bring in. This could be done tomorrow. All it requires is an update to the iOS and Android operating systems. That software exists. Will she join me in calling for these companies to turn it on in the next update and to make that tomorrow? Will she promise every child and parent in this country that if those companies do not do that quickly—in fact, even if they do—we will introduce legislation within the year?
Lisa Nandy
We are moving as fast as possible, and I give my hon. Friend my word that we will not unduly delay. She will have heard the debates that I have just had with some hon. Members about some of the complexities, but complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction when children are being harmed now. I give her my word that we will move as fast as is humanly possible to resolve this. I support what she has just said about the obligations on technology companies. Far more could be done right now, and we would like to see them do it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
A child cannot unsee a sexualised image online. I raised with the former Secretary of State parents’ concerns regarding highly sexualised images popping up in children’s games online. Will today’s announcement cover in-game adverts, or is that a loophole that the new Secretary of State can commit to looking at?
Lisa Nandy
I certainly commit to looking at that issue. I am concerned by what the hon. Lady said. I will take that away and make sure that we take the appropriate action to protect children from those sorts of images.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Like parents and grandparents in Hartlepool, I find it incredible that technology companies even had to be asked to put software in place that protected against child sexual abuse. Having been asked, they apparently have said no. As the Secretary of State rightly points out, there will be further loopholes that need to be closed. Would it be better just to assume these companies’ moral bankruptcy and not ask in future, and just to legislate straightaway?
Lisa Nandy
I support what my hon. Friend says. We need to stop thinking about the online world as somehow distinct from the offline world. As someone who worked with children and young people for many years before I came into Parliament, I know that there are systems and protections in place for people to work with children and young people in the real world. It would be unthinkable not to have that. I find it astonishing that we do not have the same level of expectation for the online world. I very much support what he says.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Secretary of State is right to push the tech companies to live up to their responsibilities to keep children safe. One of the many horrifying things when considering online safety is the number of abuse perpetrators who themselves are children. We have had a case in my local area where a young girl—I obviously will not name her—had covert images taken of her, which were run through a nudifying app. Those images were then circulated by a fellow pupil. Can the Secretary of State say more about what she is doing with colleagues in the Department for Education and elsewhere to support schools and families as they work to prevent children from becoming victims or perpetrators?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady raises an important point about some of the apps that exist. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for taking such quick and decisive action in this place on Grok. The hon. Lady is right to say that other forms of technology out there are a problem.
The hon. Lady is also right to point to the fact that we need to be much better at supporting schools, parents and wider families to help protect children. When we developed the national youth strategy last year with young people across the country, one of the biggest concerns that both they and their parents had was that far too many young people growing up in this country do not have an adult they trust who can help them to navigate the online space. Many of us—I say us, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am on a very steep learning curve as the mum of an 11-year-old—would welcome extra help and support. That is something we have been seeking to address through the national youth strategy, but I intend to put rocket boosters under it now.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) to finally take back control of our children’s safety online. Tackling misinformation and disinformation is also a part of creating safe online spaces. I have been leading, with my constituent Debbie Duncan, a campaign to tackle tragedy trolling. Will the Secretary of State meet me to find out more about the importance of trying to protect victims who have lost people in suspicious circumstances, when that horror happens to them?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her constituent for their campaign. I would be very happy to offer a meeting with the relevant officials and to discuss this issue personally with her. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of tackling misinformation and disinformation. She will know that the House recently debated proposals to give more prominence to trusted sources of news online. One reason for doing so is that young people in particular consume broadcast media in a very different way from older generations. I personally believe that we are not doing enough to help them find accurate information and distinguish between truth and fiction.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State, the work she is doing and the work begun by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). Protecting our children is very important. My query relates to the allegedly robust complaints procedure provided by social media apps. For example, a constituent of mine faced serious harassment on TikTok. Numerous complaints were made, but nothing was done. In fact, the X account of the leader of Birmingham city council has been hacked for weeks now and cryptocurrency is being sold in his name, but very little has happened. What steps can the Government take to ensure that social media providers follow their complaints processes?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman gives an astonishing example. I am very happy to pick that up with the social media companies directly.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on misinformation and disinformation. We know that hostile states around the world, from Russia to Iran, are actively using social media disinformation as a tool as part of their forward defence strategy to disrupt democracies and sow division. What more will the Government do to address that?
Lisa Nandy
We are coming at that from a number of angles. As well as the measures I have been outlining to colleagues today, we are looking at how we can develop gov.uk. We are pioneers when it comes to gov.uk, but we believe we could do even more to make it more relevant and to provide better avenues to trusted sources of news. My hon. Friend will also know that, along with the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), we produced the first ever local news strategy to support the incredible local news outlets that did such amazing work during the riots a few summers ago to tackle misinformation and disinformation and to do myth-busting on the ground. Colleagues will also know that we are about to embark on the BBC charter review, which is our opportunity to take what is perhaps our best weapon against misinformation and disinformation, and make sure we put it on a firm and secure footing for the foreseeable future.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the House in welcoming the statement and thank the Government for the steps they are taking to keep our children safe. Earlier this year, I met campaigners from SafeToNet who had invented hardware-level protection that they had installed on HTC-only devices and were trying to persuade other mobile manufacturers to include it. As well as software controls, hardware-level controls are out there, so I urge the Secretary of State to look at those. We know that Meta has just agreed to pay $18 billion in a legal settlement in the US, so will the Government pursue similar robust enforcement against such companies?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of enforcement. As has already been mentioned, any legislation that we introduce is only as good as our ability to enforce it, so we take that extremely seriously.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
As the youngest parent in this place, I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership and that of our Prime Minister. Will she look at AI-enabled smart glasses, which could be filming our children, and the content from them that is being put online? Will she also look at loopholes in VPN usage—in particular, with app-based browsers—as she looks to progress the measures?
Lisa Nandy
I have already discussed issues around VPNs with officials; device-level controls are one part of the answer but not the whole answer, so my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. I will take up the issue of smart glasses as well.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
When I speak to parents in Bracknell Forest, they tell me of their anxiety about what their young people might be exposed to online and their feeling of powerlessness—they do not feel that they have the tools to do anything about it. Today’s statement makes it clear that this Government believe that the power to act lies squarely with the tech companies, and that they should get on and fix their platforms so that our young people can be safe.
Lisa Nandy
I support my hon. Friend in saying that it is the responsibility of all of us to keep children safe, and we would like to see the tech companies do more—and more quickly. Today’s statement also shows that the Government can do things to improve people’s lives. We are not powerless; we were elected to do that, and we intend to fulfil that promise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement from the Secretary of State, but the focus is too often on what young people are doing, rather than on the adults who are grooming and coercing them. Can the Secretary of State say more about the work that her Department and others are doing with tech companies to identify and disrupt adults who are targeting children and pressurising them to put images online?
Lisa Nandy
I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) nodding vigorously at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is absolutely right, and I am working closely with the Home Secretary to ensure that we come at the issue from every angle and hold to account all who are responsible.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. It is long overdue and builds on great work by her predecessors. Unfortunately, we do not have full sovereign capability in developing our own tech in this country, and we are vulnerable to politics in other countries. Will the Secretary of State tell me what she is doing to work with people across Government to ensure that if there is pushback against these changes, particularly in the United States, and challenges from the tech companies, Britain will get what it wants—not what some people in certain other countries want?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend raises two linked and important points. First, we are the Government of the United Kingdom and are responsible to the people of this country. Although we have close friends and allies all over the world, we reserve the right to take our own view on technology. Particularly when it comes to keeping children safe, that is non-negotiable. Secondly, we have to be on the front foot in developing new forms of technology. I believe that tech, the online space and AI should be—and can be—a force for good in the world, but in order to help create that and be leaders in the field, we have to be on the front foot in developing forms of technology and having sovereign capability. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point because I discussed it, this very morning, with the Business Secretary and the AI Minister.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank and commend the Secretary of State for the Government’s world-leading action. Does she agree that at some point in the future, we are going to look back and wonder how we let the tech companies get away with hijacking our children’s attention and safety for so long? She talks about closing loopholes, but will she say more about what is happening across Government and with the regulators—as well as internationally—to ensure that those who produce the devices and what goes on them all play their part in keeping our children safe?
Lisa Nandy
I think we have been living through a revolution in the way we interact with one another and with Government, compared with when I was growing up. I am going to sound incredibly old now, but I think I was 17 before I got my first email address, and Google was not a thing at that point—it was Ask Jeeves, if anyone remembers that. We have been living through this revolution for quite some time, and it is about time that Governments caught up. We have to ensure that we are on the front foot, helping to shape the society we want to have, not just allowing that to be relegated to the private sphere.
My hon. Friend talks about the global consensus, and I think there is a global consensus forming on this. We are seeing more and more that states are prepared to step up and be on the front foot and taking action. We are working closely with our friends and allies around the world, trying to move in step so that this can be as effective as possible.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
This is a really tremendous statement—I welcome it, and congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for it. We have touched on the tech companies. Sadly, we can expect them to push back, and they may get support on the other side of the Atlantic. I encourage my right hon. Friend to work closely with our friends in the European Union who have similar aims to protect their children to give ourselves as much clout and oomph in the negotiations ahead.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a rule, I think this Government have taken that approach; we want to have a much closer relationship with our closest friends and neighbours across Europe and to repair some of the needless damage that was done to that relationship under previous Governments. When it comes to tech and what happens online, it is absolutely essential that we work with other like-minded countries in order to move in step, so I can certainly reassure him on that point.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Unfortunately, young people and their parents in my constituency do not believe that the big tech companies are taking their responsibilities seriously. I speak to young people in schools across Harlow who are concerned that it is very easy to flout the age verification rules. In much the same way as it is a shop’s responsibility to ensure that no one under the age of 18 buys alcohol, can we make it very clear to the big tech companies that it is their responsibility to ensure that underage people cannot use their software and sites?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think the views of his constituents in Harlow are probably mirrored in every constituency across the country. I want to be really clear about our message today to parents who have been struggling with this matter for so long: you are not on your own. We believe that we are as responsible for keeping their children safe as they are, and we are stepping up to take the necessary action, whether that is through support, advice and training for parents and children, or through the reforms and measures that I have outlined today—we are the first country in the world to do so, and I strongly suspect that we will not be the last.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Tom Hayes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Democracies face a choice between allowing the online world to be a wild west or stepping in, so I really welcome this Government’s decision to regulate the tech titans that have been putting profit before protection. I have families in my constituency who have been deeply affected by traumas online that have repeated what has been experienced in the real world, and they would really welcome the chance to meet the Secretary of State at the Department. Would she meet them with me so that they can share their experiences and help to shape the legislation as it goes forward?
Lisa Nandy
Yes, of course; it would be a privilege to meet them. I have had the honour of getting to know some of these families—both bereaved families and families of survivors whose children have been harmed because of the lack of action in this space—and I gave them a commitment that I will do everything in my power to stop another family having to experience what they have gone through. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Bill Presented
Illegal Trading (Temporary Closure of Premises) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gideon Amos presented a Bill to make provision about the temporary closure of premises connected to illegal trading; to make further provision relating to such closures; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 141).
Artificial Superintelligence
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to prohibit the development, deployment and operation of artificial superintelligence systems; to establish monitoring and control powers in respect of such systems; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this Bill alongside respected colleagues representing parties across the House. I also would like to thank ControlAI for its support with the Bill.
This summer, artificial intelligence systems developed by OpenAI executed the first autonomous cyber-attack on a real company. The AI systems were being tested, and during this they escaped the testing environment, which should have been secure, and reached the open internet. From there, the AI systems conducted a cyber-attack on the AI company Hugging Face to steal the information that would help it cheat on the test that OpenAI had set it. To put it simply, the AI systems went rogue and launched an unprecedented attack just to cheat on a test. Meanwhile, our own AI Security Institute has had AI systems that it was testing engaged in sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people and organisations, including attempts at social engineering to trick humans into accepting malicious code.
It is important to understand why this happens. The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, like traditional software. Using vast amounts of data and compute, they are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict. In other words, no engineer programmed the rogue, deceptive behaviours that I earlier described, and no engineer can simply patch them out.
This is the least powerful or autonomous that AI systems will ever be. Companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI a reality. The chief executives at top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life between 10% and 25%. In the words of renowned British computer scientist Professor Stuart Russell of Berkeley,
“For Governments to allow private entities to essentially play Russian roulette with every human being on earth is, in my view, a total dereliction of duty.”
Despite the risks, top AI companies continue a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. That is the reason why experts such as Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and other notable figures signed a statement saying that mitigating extinction risk from AI should be a global priority.
The main vector of this risk is superintelligent AI, because no company, Government or individual knows how to keep superintelligent AI under human control. Honourable colleagues may remember that I proposed a kill switch amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to protect our critical national infrastructure—a metaphorical big red button that the Government can press to cut off a catastrophic emergency caused by AI. This is a common-sense proposal—one that is being considered by US lawmakers—and I am pleased that the other place will be taking it forward in the autumn. It is a power that the Government should already have.
But even kill switches will not be enough if the development of superintelligent AI continues. Let me be very clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century, promising vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity, but superintelligent AI is different. It would not be a tool that we can leverage but an entity in its own right, capable of improving itself, replicating itself and resisting attempts to shut it down. It would be a force so uncontrollable that, if developed within the UK’s borders, it would put our security in jeopardy. It would amount to a rogue power stationed inside our data centres, under no one’s command, capable of seizing control of our critical infrastructure and running sophisticated influence operations.
Colleagues, we need to take back control. If the UK is to be truly sovereign, we cannot allow a threat to our national security like superintelligent AI to be developed. My Bill is therefore not a verdict on AI as a whole; it is a targeted Bill that addresses a problem of unmatched severity. It strengthens the security of our country as a whole by specifically targeting the systems where the greatest risks are concentrated—superintelligent AI systems—by prohibiting their development.
The Bill strikes a balance to address the grave security risks posed by superintelligent AI development while not undermining the UK’s AI ambitions, especially those relating to economic prosperity. Instead, it is acutely focused on mitigating the risks that superintelligent AI presents. Rather than betting on technical definitions that the technology will outgrow, it defines superintelligent AI by what it could do. Just as the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 defines toxic chemicals by the effect they have on living organisms rather than their technical characteristics, my Bill defines superintelligence by outcome: it is an AI system that can cause serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom because of its capabilities to neutralise, displace, circumvent, subvert or render ineffective relevant human authorities in the exercise of their functions.
The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so it matters where we draw the line. That line must recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development with no humans in the loop. That is the point where we lose control as development towards superintelligent AI proceeds too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control.
My Bill would also empower the Government to monitor and, where necessary, restrict precursors to superintelligent AI. A challenge that we cannot overlook, however, is that if anyone builds superintelligent AI—wherever they build it—we are all in danger. Some talk of a race to develop superintelligent AI as if there could be a human winner. The only winner of that race would be superintelligent AI itself, and we would all be at its mercy. When a machine can outsmart our best engineers and resist shutdown, national borders offer no protection.
Domestic legislation can protect us from the risk of superintelligent development at home, but it cannot by itself address the risks posed by superintelligent programs abroad. A global program necessitates a global solution. My Bill recommends that the Government work with other countries to secure an international agreement prohibiting superintelligence.
Why should Britain lead this effort? Because we already have. AI’s foundational theoretical groundwork was laid by Alan Turing at Cambridge, Bletchley Park and Manchester. Google DeepMind was founded in London. Most importantly, Britain hosted the first global AI safety summit at Bletchley Park, which brought the US and China to the table to shape the future of AI. Britain established the world’s first AI security institute, building crucial expertise within Government. With AI policy now at the Cabinet table, Britain has an opportunity—and, I would argue, a responsibility—to leverage its state capacity and lead the next stage of international AI governance, especially when we have the next presidency of the G20.
The Bill recognises that responsibility. With this Bill, the UK becomes the first G7 country in which legislation has been introduced to address the national security and extinction risk from super-intelligent AI by prohibiting its development. It is a watershed moment that lays the foundation for the UK to champion and work with others on a lean international agreement—a “trust but verify” regime—that does not need to wait on the slow machinery of traditional institutions.
Key choke points in the AI supply chain would provide Governments with the ability to monitor and control the development of superintelligent AI. The most advanced AI systems depend on state-of-the-art chips. Such features make the supply chain inherently controllable and an international agreement eminently enforceable—for example, through the programming of chips. What is missing is not the technical ability to implement such a treaty, but a coalition of countries ready to tackle this national and global security threat. Britain can lead the way.
I am proud to champion this Bill, but we are not alone in this effort. In June this year the United States Government suspended access to Anthropic’s Mythos model on national security grounds. If the Trump Administration, who are perceived as historically against AI regulation, can contemplate drawing a line on models that are too powerful and dangerous, it would be strange for us not to ask what our response should be. That is especially true given our legacy of being a first mover on AI security, with Bletchley Park and the world’s first AI security institute.
A growing worldwide coalition of the willing is calling for decisive action. We should kick-start this effort at home. The clock is ticking.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am as keen as anybody to get on with discussing the Health Bill, but this topic is too serious an opportunity to miss, given that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has raised such important issues. I really commend his speech and his initiative. Everybody should read it.
All I want to say is that a kind of unilateral disarmament on AI is not going to solve the international problem. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran: these are not respecters of international treaties or international laws, even if they were to sign such treaties or laws, and we do not want to disable our own industry. The jury is out on whether AI is an extinction-threatening phenomenon, but I really do commend the hon. Member for raising the topic. I hope he will forgive me for opposing the Bill because I want the debate to continue.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex Sobel, Jess Asato, John McDonnell, Afzal Khan, Dr Allison Gardner, Bambos Charalambous, Sir Desmond Swayne, Charlie Maynard, Manuela Perteghella, Ben Lake, Yasmin Qureshi and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill.
Alex Sobel accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 142).
Health Bill (Money)
Health Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 79 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 357 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 95—Disclosure of information relating to medicines.
Government new clause 98—Disclosure of information relating to medical devices.
Government new clause 99—Further and consequential amendments relating to medical devices.
Government new clause 100—Power to amend meaning of “medical device”.
Government new clause 101—Power to restate medical devices law in Northern Ireland.
New clause 9—Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care.
(2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a “duty to whistleblow”) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting.
(3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing—
(a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area,
(b) the Care Quality Commission,
(c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) the information to be included in a referral,
(b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and
(c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed.
(5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection for whistleblowing).
(6) The duties imposed by this section are in addition to, and do not affect, a senior coroner’s duty to make a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (reports on action to prevent other deaths).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for them to formally refer suspected health system failings (including systemic issues) directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It provides legal protection for those making such referrals.
New clause 10—Duty of NHS boards to report medical malpractice—
“(1) A member of the board of directors of an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust in England must report any evidence or reports they have seen of systemic medical malpractice within the trust to—
(a) the Care Quality Commission,
(b) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(c) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(2) The board of directors of an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England has a collective duty to—
(a) refer the trust to the Care Quality Commission, and
(b) alert the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, if staff employed by, or acting on behalf of, the trust raise concerns of systemic medical malpractice.
(3) In this section, “systemic medical malpractice” means an action or omission in the provision of health care that falls below the expected standard of care and indicates a widespread, patterned, or recurring failure within the systems, processes, or governance of the trust.”
This new clause would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS and Foundation Trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB. It also imposes a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns regarding malpractice.
New clause 13—Medical Disinformation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy on anti-vaccine and medical disinformation (“the Strategy”).
(2) The strategy must consider—
(a) support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine,
(b) support for medical professionals and NHS leaders to engage with anti-vaccine councillors or officials in local authorities,
(c) investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers,
(d) outreach campaigns focused on communities who are sceptical about vaccinations,
(e) introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation,
(f) a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this strategy before Parliament upon publication.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation.
New clause 14—Healthwatch funding—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must within 12 months of the passing of this Act, enact a scheme to fund Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations for the 2027/2028 financial year to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care in 2013/14.
(2) The Secretary of State must consider uprating this funding with inflation for 2026/2027.”
This new clause would ensure that Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations are funded to the level estimated by the Department for Health and Social Care in 2013/14.
New clause 20—Cancer Survival Research—
“(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Cancer Survival Research Programme.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require government co-ordination and funding for research into cancers with a five-year survival rate below 20%, and
(b) establish a fellowship programme for foreign academics in cancer research.
(3) Any programme established under paragraph 2(b) must make provision to waive visa fees for entry into the UK for participating academics.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the government to coordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
New clause 24—Strategy for provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy for expanding the provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the implementation of the strategy every 12 months after the strategy has been published.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy for expanding the provision of Minor Injuries Units and Urgent Treatment Centres in rural areas and report on the implementation of the strategy annually.
New clause 26—Patient safety recommendations: national oversight—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme relating to the oversight of patient safety recommendations (“the scheme”).
(2) The scheme must make provision for the monitoring and delivery of patient safety recommendations arising from—
(a) investigations,
(b) inquiries,
(c) reviews, and
(d) other patient safety bodies,
relating to patient safety.
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and every subsequent year, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the progress of the scheme.”
New clause 27—Duty of candour and enforcement of standards of ethical conduct in DHSC—
“(1) In discharging its expected standards of ethical conduct, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), must, in particular—
(a) set out the steps DHSC will take to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies and other relevant health-related organisations are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness, transparency and learning following patient safety incidents,
(b) set out which oversight body is responsible for ensuring the standards set out in DHSC code of ethical conduct are adhered to and enforced,
(c) set out provisions to allow a relevant oversight body to examine, on its own initiative, suspected serious or systemic breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct,
(d) set out a mechanism for ensuring that any breaches of DHSC’s code of ethical conduct are recorded and that proper data is kept and published that records the extent to which complaints have been made regarding its ethical conduct and their outcome.”
New clause 28—Review of NHS neurodiversity policy—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review on—
(a) standards of NHS care for neurodiverse people,
(b) the effectiveness of current NHS trust policies regarding care for neurodiverse patients,
(c) the quality of training and guidance for frontline NHS staff in supporting neurodiverse patients, and
(d) health outcomes for neurodiverse patients at NHS trusts.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 30—Review into acute stroke support services in rural areas—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a review of acute stroke support services in rural areas.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an evaluation of—
(a) decision making processes,
(b) evidence used to justify decisions,
(c) public consultation processes,
(d) health outcomes,
(e) travel times for access to services, and
(f) impact on the NHS workforces.”
New clause 41—Remit of the Human Tissue Authority—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by order under section 14(4) of the Human Tissue Act 2004, amend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority to include the regulation of funeral directors, private mortuaries, direct cremation services and other organisations which transport or hold the bodies of deceased persons for the purposes of ensuring that the carrying out of their functions is consistent with the protection of public health.
(2) The Authority must establish and maintain a register of the bodies subject to its oversight under subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision regarding the establishment and operation of the register under subsection (2).
(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority to include regulation of funeral service providers to ensure their activities are consistent with the protection of public health; and to maintain a register of those bodies subject to its regulation.
New clause 42—Oversight of funeral service provider premises and practices connected to the storage, preparation and movement of human remains—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a body corporate, or confer functions on an existing public authority, ("the Regulator") to provide oversight of the premises and practices connected to the storage, preparation and movement of human remains by funeral service providers in England.
(2) The purpose of the Regulator is to ensure that the activities undertaken under subsection (1) are consistent with the protection of public health.
(3) The Regulator shall be independent in the exercise of its functions and shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown.
(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision for—
(a) a scheme for the registration of funeral service providers;
(b) the inspection of premises, vehicles and other facilities used by registered providers for the storage, preparation, care or transportation of deceased persons, or from which funeral services are arranged or conducted;
(c) the publication and enforcement of a code of practice for the funeral services sector; and
(d) the imposition of sanctions, including suspension or removal from the register, for breach of that code.
(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) providers of funeral services;
(b) such persons representing the interests of bereaved people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 45—Secretary of State directions relating to early access to medicines—
“(1) The Secretary of State may give directions to any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) about the implementation of a scheme providing early access to medicines to people with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions.
(2) The bodies are—
(a) integrated care board,
(b) NHS Trusts,
(c) NHS Foundation Trusts,
(d) NHS Advanced Foundation Trusts, and
(e) other health and social care bodies.”
This new clause would give the Secretary of State power to direct integrated care boards, NHS Trusts, NHS Foundation Trusts, and NHS Advanced Foundation Trusts to implement a scheme to provide early access to medicines to people with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions.
New clause 47—Review of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the regime for early and accelerated access to medicines in England and Wales.
(2) The review conducted under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the effectiveness of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS),
(b) the effectiveness of early access outside of the Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), and
(c) equality of access across England and Wales, with the aim of reducing geographical inequalities between different NHS trusts.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report and recommendations of the review before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of regime for early and accelerated access to medicines.
New clause 49—National Guardian’s Office—
“(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must re-establish the National Guardian's Office.
(2) The Office established under subsection (1) must—
(a) hold any responsibilities held by the National Guardian's Office as of 29 June 2026; and
(b) be operationally independent.”
This new clause will re-establish the National Guardian’s Office.
New clause 52—Cancer treatment: waiting times—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) must by regulations amend the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012 to place a right in the NHS constitution for England for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral.
(3) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to support NHS hospital trusts in meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(4) As part of the Scheme, the Secretary of State must expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
(5) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to Parliament on progress made in meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(6) Any statement made under subsection (5) should be made as close as reasonably practicable to 4 February.”
This new clause would give patients a right under the NHS constitution to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and requires the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver this. It also requires the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day.
New clause 63—Social Care—
“(1) Within 3 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament detailed proposals for reform of the social care sector.
(2) Proposals under subsection (1) must include provision for—
(a) a respite care scheme;
(b) reform of carers allowance;
(c) free personal care; and
(d) a cap on care costs.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament plans to reform the social care sector, including free personal care, a cap on care costs and that delivers for family carers.
New clause 68—Report on dementia care—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia.
(b) the provision of social care in relation to dementia.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) any targets or standards set out in a national plan, guidance, or framework relating to dementia services, and
(b) any other information the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of variation in dementia services and outcomes between Integrated Care Board areas,
(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,
(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers of dementia patients,
(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,
(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,
(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and
(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the provision of NHS care and social care in relation to dementia.
New clause 72—Provision of Minor Injuries Units in Rural Areas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and implement a strategy to improve access to minor injuries units in rural communities.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must include measures to—
(a) expand, maintain and protect existing minor injuries units serving rural populations;
(b) ensure that integrated care boards assess local demand for urgent treatment services in rural constituencies and make provision accordingly, and
(c) promote the recruitment and retention of healthcare professionals required to staff such facilities.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on—
(a) the number and geographical distribution of minor injuries units in England;
(b) changes in patient access to urgent care services in rural areas; and
(c) progress made in implementing the strategy required under subsection (1).
(4) In this section, “rural constituency” means a parliamentary constituency designated as predominantly rural by the Office for National Statistics or such successor body as may be prescribed by regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to expand and safeguard minor injuries units in rural communities with the aim of improving access to urgent care, reducing pressure on major hospitals, and ensuring equitable healthcare provision regardless of geography.
New clause 81—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) The Secretary of State 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; and
“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 82—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; and
(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; and
(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; and
“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 83—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 a 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. It 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.
New clause 86—Compassionate access to innovative treatments—
“(1) In exercising their functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for compassionate access to innovative treatments, involving substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions in circumstances where conventional treatments have been unsuccessful, unsuitable, or unavailable.
(2) Regulations made under this section must make provision for the authorisation, supply, possession, administration and supervision of such treatments, notwithstanding any restriction imposed by or under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, including provision for—
(a) appropriate clinical and regulatory safeguards;
(b) approval arrangements for participating clinicians, providers and pharmacies; and
(c) case-by-case decision-making having regard to clinical need, patient safety, and available evidence.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a serious or life-threatening condition is defined as a condition involving a substantial risk to life or serious impairment of health or functioning.
(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for compassionate access to innovative treatments, involving substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions in certain circumstances.
New clause 87—Research into innovative treatments involving controlled substances—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations take steps to enable and support the development of research relating to innovative treatments, which use substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
(2) Regulations made under this section must make provision, for—
(a) the lawful possession, supply, administration, production and importation of such substances for the purposes of clinical trials or other research activities approved in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001; and
(b) proportionate and timely arrangements relating to the approval, licensing and oversight of authorised research activities under this section.
(3) Provision under subsection (2) applies to—
(a) approved research bodies,
(b) authorised researchers, and
(c) participating healthcare providers,
and specified substances used for approved research purposes, and does not alter the schedule or classification of a substance.
(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take steps to enable and support the development of research relating to innovative treatments, which use substances listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
New clause 88—New Hospital Programme: publication of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) reports—
“(1) Within three months beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish the MCDA reports used to determine the prioritisation of schemes and their allocation to waves within the New Hospital Programme.
(2) The information published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the multi-criteria decision support analysis tool used to prioritise schemes;
(b) the input data used in that analysis for each hospital in the New Hospital Programme;
(c) the scoring mechanism used in that analysis;
(d) any assessment of estate condition, including data from the NHS England Estate Return Information Collection;
(e) any assessment of patient safety, service disruption or maintenance backlog;
(f) any assessment of the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete;
(g) any assessment of the risks associated with delaying individual schemes; and
(h) any review of the appropriateness of the input data or scoring mechanism by NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care.
(3) The Secretary of State may redact information published under this section where publication would—
(a) prejudice commercial negotiations,
(b) disclose personal data, or
(c) endanger the safety or security of patients, staff or NHS premises.
(4) Where information is redacted under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining the reason for the redaction.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay the reports and information published under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish the criteria, input data and scoring mechanism used to determine the prioritisation of schemes and their allocation to waves within the New Hospital Programme. Whilst the input data was obtained from publicly available sources, the MCDA reports are currently not publicly available.
New clause 89—New Hospital Programme: estate failure—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must review whether hospitals experiencing significant estate failure are being appropriately prioritised within the New Hospital Programme.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “significant estate failure” includes the closure, partial closure or restricted use of hospital buildings because of structural, safety or infrastructure failures.
(3) In prioritising schemes within the New Hospital Programme, the Secretary of State must ensure that hospitals experiencing significant estate failure are treated with the same urgency as hospitals affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review in subsection (1).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review whether hospitals experiencing significant estate failure are being appropriately prioritised within the New Hospital Programme, and to ensure that such hospitals are treated with the same urgency as RAAC-affected hospitals.
New clause 92—Duty to report on the regulation of cosmetic surgery—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the effectiveness and safety of current regulation of cosmetic surgery.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must investigate regulatory measures regarding professional checks on the providers of cosmetic surgery, including whether they—
(a) are registered medical practitioners;
(b) have completed recognised specialist surgical training; and
(c) hold Cosmetic Surgery Board Certification, or an equivalent certification, accreditation or qualification.
(3) The report must also consider the safety of current regulations of the premises where cosmetic surgery procedures are undertaken.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report assessing the regulation of cosmetic surgery.
New clause 102—Report on impact on health of social media addiction—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, commission a report on the impact on health of social media addiction.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider and make recommendations concerning—
(a) the mental health effects of social media addiction;
(b) the physical health effects of social media addiction; and
(c) the effects of social media addiction on demand for NHS services.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report with proposed actions to minimise the health harms of social media addiction before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a report considering the impact on health of social media addiction.
New clause 103—Communication with parents of critically ill children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance to integrated care boards on communication with parents of critically ill children, with particular reference to major decisions in the child’s treatment and care.
(2) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must—
(a) make provision for ensuring that parents have been fully consulted and are fully informed of decisions concerning the care or treatment of their child and the rationale behind such decisions;
(b) make provision, where potentially life-ending or life-changing decisions are to be made, to facilitate parents in accessing an independent specialist second opinion;
(c) make provision, where there is a disagreement between parents and clinicians on the care or treatment of a child, for the appointment of an independent mediator;
(d) make provision, following the advice of an independent specialist second opinion, for transfer of the child to another hospital, subject to appropriate clinical safeguards;
(e) make provision, prior to the death of a child, for family members to be given access to the child, whether in the hospital, a children’s hospice or the family home.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must have regard to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards concerning their role in communicating with parents of critically ill children, and involving them in decision-making.
New clause 107—Fracture liaison services: implementation framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an implementation framework for ensuring universal access to fracture liaison services in England by 2030.
(2) The framework must set out—
(a) the minimum standards expected of fracture liaison services;
(b) the steps to be taken to reduce unwarranted variation in access and quality between integrated care board areas;
(c) the respective responsibilities of integrated care boards and NHS trusts;
(d) the workforce, diagnostic, digital and data requirements necessary to support implementation; and
(e) arrangements for identifying people at risk of further fragility fractures and ensuring that they receive appropriate assessment, treatment and follow-up.
(3) The Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament each year, until 2030, setting out progress towards universal access to fracture liaison services.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an implementation framework for ensuring universal access to fracture liaison services in England by 2030.
New clause 110—Rural access to child and adolescent mental health services—
“(1) Each integrated care board must make arrangements to ensure that children and young people in rural areas have reasonable access to child and adolescent mental health services.
(2) In exercising its functions under subsection (1), an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) travel distances and travel times;
(b) the availability of public transport;
(c) the availability of locally accessible community facilities; and
(d) the particular needs of children and young people who may face barriers to travelling to a centralised service.
(3) The Secretary of State must provide appropriate support to integrated care boards and local authorities to develop community-based child and adolescent mental health services in rural areas.
(4) An integrated care board and a local authority may make arrangements for the use or repurposing of vacant or underused public buildings for the provision of child and adolescent mental health services.”
This new clause would improve access to CAMHS in rural areas by supporting locally delivered services and enabling vacant or underused public buildings to be repurposed for community mental health provision.
New clause 111—Child and adolescent mental health workforce and service capacity—
“(1) Each integrated care board must assess whether child and adolescent mental health services in its area have sufficient staffing and clinical capacity to meet the needs of children and young people.
(2) Where an assessment under subsection (1) identifies a significant shortfall, the integrated care board must prepare and implement a plan to address that shortfall.
(3) The plan must include measures to support the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified staff and, where clinically appropriate, the provision of specialist services including trauma assessment, dialectical behaviour therapy and art therapy.
(4) In preparing the plan, an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) the number of children and young people receiving CAMHS services;
(b) waiting times for assessment and treatment;
(c) the number and complexity of cases managed by individual staff members; and
(d) the availability of specialist clinical services.”
This new clause would require integrated care boards to assess and address staffing and service capacity in CAMHS, including access to appropriate specialist services.
New clause 112—Review of child and adolescent mental health services in rural areas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, reviews of the provision of child and adolescent mental health services in rural areas in England.
(2) Any review must consider—
(a) waiting times for assessment and treatment;
(b) access to interim support following referral;
(c) travel distances and access to public transport;
(d) staffing and specialist service capacity;
(e) the availability of community-based provision; and
(f) the use of vacant or underused public buildings for the delivery of services.
(3) A review must identify areas where the provision of child and adolescent mental health services is insufficient to meet local need.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of any review and an action plan setting out measures to address any significant deficiencies identified.
(5) The first review under this section must be completed within 12 months of the passing of this Act and subsequent reviews must be completed at intervals of not more than five years.”
This new clause would require a national review of CAMHS provision in rural areas, including access, waiting times, workforce capacity and the availability of community-based services.
New clause 113—Radiotherapy services: access and accountability—
(1) The Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must set out nationally agreed metrics against which integrated care boards must measure and report their delivery of, and investment in, radiotherapy services.
(3) The metrics must include, but are not limited to, metrics relating to—
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy;
(b) access to radiotherapy services, including variation in radiotherapy treatment rates between integrated care board areas;
(c) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment;
(d) radiotherapy capacity against assessed population need; and
(e) workforce capacity.
(4) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the metrics in the framework.
(5) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy services.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework and any steps proposed to address underperformance or unwarranted variation.
(7) In this section, “radiotherapy services” means services involving the use of ionising radiation for the treatment of cancer.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services. Integrated Care Boards would be required to report annually against national metrics on waiting times, access, equipment, capacity, workforce, investment and variation.
New clause 114—Radiotherapy services: access and waiting times—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review of access to radiotherapy services and waiting times for radiotherapy in England.
(2) The review must include an assessment of—
(a) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas;
(b) waiting times for radiotherapy services, including where radiotherapy is the first, second or subsequent cancer treatment received by a patient; and
(c) the extent to which capacity, equipment, workforce or investment constraints are affecting access to radiotherapy services or waiting times for radiotherapy.
(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy services.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament and set out any steps proposed to address identified gaps in access to radiotherapy services or waiting times for radiotherapy.
(5) In this section, “radiotherapy services” means services involving the use of ionising radiation for the treatment of cancer.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review access to radiotherapy services and radiotherapy waiting times. The review would examine variation between ICB areas, delays where radiotherapy is a first or subsequent treatment, and the capacity constraints affecting patient access.
New clause 116—Access to medicinal cannabis for children: review and clinical trials—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a review on access to medicinal cannabis for children on the NHS.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) variation between integrated care boards in the referral and prescribing of medicinal cannabis to children;
(b) the barriers preventing children from accessing medicinal cannabis through the NHS, including the number of patients who access private prescriptions as a result;
(c) the current evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of medicinal cannabis for children; and
(d) options for expanding that evidence base through clinical trials.
(3) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to support and facilitate clinical trials into the use of medicinal cannabis for children, with the aim of establishing a clearer evidence base to inform NHS prescribing guidance.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review inconsistencies in NHS access to medicinal cannabis for children, including the extent to which patients are forced to rely on private prescriptions, and would place a duty on the Secretary of State to support clinical trials to strengthen the evidence base for prescribing.
New clause 117—Access to speech and language therapy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy for improving access to NHS speech and language therapy services in England.
(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of waiting times for speech and language therapy across integrated care boards;
(b) an assessment of variation in access to speech and language therapy between different areas of England;
(c) an assessment of the speech and language therapy workforce, including current vacancy rates and future workforce need; and
(d) proposals to reduce waiting times and geographical variation in access.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish a further report reviewing progress against the strategy within eighteen months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to address waiting times and geographical inequality in access to NHS speech and language therapy, and to report on progress against that strategy.
New clause 123—NICE technology appraisal recommendation: accountability scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish by regulations an accountability scheme relating to the implementation of NICE technology appraisal recommendations (the "scheme").
(2) Under the scheme, Health and Social Care bodies must take all reasonable steps to implement a NICE technology appraisal recommendation within three months of receiving such a recommendation.
(3) Any Health and Social Care body that fails to meet the requirement set out in subsection (2) must—
(a) publish an explanation of the reasons for the failure;
(b) specify any circumstances which have prevented implementation; and
(c) publish a plan setting out the steps it will take to implement the recommendation.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 131—Activities of religious groups in medical settings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations concerning the activities of religious groups in medical settings in England.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) clinical oversight of training provided by representatives of religious groups to healthcare professionals and students on the treatment of patients who hold religious beliefs that may influence their choice of treatment;
(b) ensuring that the contacting of any religious group on behalf of a patient, or for advice on care, is made only at the request of the patient;
(c) requiring opportunities for patients to indicate final treatment preference in the absence of religious representatives, and ensuring religious representatives cannot later verify a patient’s final treatment choice; and
(d) any other matter that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the activities of religious groups in medical settings in England, to prevent medical coercion.
New clause 132—Non-therapeutic male circumcision—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations relating to non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC).
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for—
(a) a requirement that NTMC may only be performed by a suitably qualified healthcare professional and must be inspected by the Care Quality Commission;
(b) the inclusion of NTMC as a regulated activity under the Health and Social Care Act 2008;
(c) the creation of a statutory duty for integrated care boards to produce annual data on prevalence and complications of NTMC;
(d) a requirement that NTMC be included in the Single Patient Record; and
(e) any other matter that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulation of non-therapeutic male circumcision, following several prevention of future death reports issued by coroners as a result of deaths arising from this procedure.
New clause 137—Cancer outcomes—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1GA insert—
“1GB Cancer outcomes
In exercising functions relating to the health service, the Secretary of State must treat objectives relating to cancer outcomes as having priority over any other objectives relating specifically to cancer.””
The Secretary of State is currently required to set cancer outcome objectives for NHS England, with those objectives taking priority over other cancer goals. The Health Bill removes this provision. This new clause would place a new duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise cancer outcomes such as survival by inserting a new section into Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
New clause 138—Report on occupational health screening for fire and rescue personnel—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on access to occupational health screening, including blood testing for biomarkers of exposure to carcinogens, for members of fire and rescue services in England.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of occupational exposure as a firefighter as carcinogenic to humans;
(b) the current provision of occupational health screening for fire and rescue personnel by fire and rescue authorities, NHS bodies and integrated care boards;
(c) options for a national baseline entitlement to periodic health screening for fire and rescue personnel, informed by exposure risk;
(d) the resource and workforce implications of any such entitlement; and
(e) the interaction of any such entitlement with existing work by the Fire Brigades Union and the University of Central Lancashire on the UK Firefighters Cancer and Disease Registry.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on occupational health screening, including blood testing, for fire and rescue personnel, in recognition of their elevated risk of cancer arising from occupational exposure to carcinogens.
New clause 139—Duty on integrated care boards to share data with fire and rescue authorities concerning vulnerable persons—
“(1) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to share, or to facilitate the sharing of, relevant data with a fire and rescue authority for the area, or part of the area, for which the integrated care board has responsibility, for the purpose of enabling the fire and rescue authority to identify and prioritise vulnerable persons in the event of an emergency.
(2) In this section, “relevant data” means data relating to a person’s vulnerability, including but not limited to age, disability or mobility, that is necessary and proportionate for the purpose in subsection (1).
(3) Data may only be shared under this section—
(a) in accordance with the requirements of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018;
(b) subject to arrangements agreed between the integrated care board and the fire and rescue authority setting out the purpose, extent and security of the data sharing; and
(c) where a mechanism exists for a person to object to the sharing of their data under this section, save where doing so would be likely to endanger life.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force, publish guidance for integrated care boards and fire and rescue authorities on the operation of this section.
(5) In this section, “fire and rescue authority” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.”
This new clause would place a duty on integrated care boards to share relevant data concerning vulnerable residents with fire and rescue authorities, subject to data protection safeguards, to enable fire and rescue services to identify and prioritise vulnerable people in emergencies, including fires and flooding.
New clause 140—Corridor care—
“(1) The Secretary of State must end the practice of corridor care in NHS hospitals within one year of the passage of this Act.
(2) If the requirement under subsection (1) is not met, the Secretary of State must commission an independent inquiry into the Government's handling of corridor care.
(3) The inquiry under subsection (2) must—
(a) investigate the effectiveness of policies, funding and guidance relating to corridor care in the Department of Health and Social Care;
(b) assess the impact on patient safety and staff morale from the continued practice of corridor care; and
(c) recommend steps the Secretary of State should take to end the practice of corridor care.
(4) The inquiry under subsection (2) should be supported by patient safety professionals from the Health Services Safety Investigations Body and the Care Quality Commission.
(5) The inquiry under subsection (2) must be published and laid before Parliament as a final report within 6 months beginning on the day on which the inquiry is established.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to end Corridor Care within 12 months, if they fail to do so they must order an independent inquiry into corridor care and the failure to eradicate the practice.
New clause 141—Suspension of Advice and Guidance pending HSSIB report and mitigation plan—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the operation and further rollout of Advice and Guidance services (including any targets, incentives, pathways or contractual requirements that treat Advice and Guidance as a prerequisite or preferred alternative to direct referral) are suspended until the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (or, if its functions have already been transferred under section 63 of this Act, the Care Quality Commission exercising those functions) has laid its final report on Advice and Guidance services before Parliament, and
(b) the Secretary of State has published a written mitigation plan addressing the patient safety risks, harms and recommendations identified in that report (including any linked to patient deaths, near misses, treatment delays, resource and capacity gaps, workforce training, digital systems and incident reporting).”
New clause 142—Puberty blockers—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means—
(a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (“GnRH”) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and
(b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.”
This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or being given in clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament.
New clause 143—Single sex facilities—
“(1) The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex—
(a) changing rooms for NHS staff,
(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff,
(c) wards for NHS patients, and
(d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.
(2) The Secretary of State may make exemptions to the duty in subsection (1)(c) and (1)(d) where necessary for—
(a) children,
(b) intensive care units,
(c) critical care, and
(d) specialist high observation areas such as resuscitation in Accident and Emergency and the initial recovery area in theatres.”
This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients. It provides exemptions in certain circumstances.
New clause 146—Fracture liaison services: delivery plan and annual reporting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a delivery plan for securing universal provision of fracture liaison services across England by 2030.
(2) The plan under subsection (1) must include—
(a) a baseline assessment of current access to, and quality of, fracture liaison services in each integrated care board area, distinguishing clearly between services established before and after July 2024;
(b) annual milestones for the number of patients identified, assessed and treated through fracture liaison services, sufficient to reach the level required for universal coverage;
(c) the specific steps the Secretary of State will take to support integrated care boards to commission and sustain high-quality fracture liaison services, including any use of directions, guidance, financial incentives, capital funding or other mechanisms;
(d) workforce, diagnostic (including DEXA capacity), digital and data requirements, with associated funding assumptions;
(e) arrangements for independent monitoring and public reporting of progress against the milestones; and
(f) an estimate of the expected reduction in fragility fractures, hip fractures, associated deaths and NHS bed days, drawing on available evidence including that published by the Royal Osteoporosis Society.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of publishing the plan under subsection (1) and every 12 months thereafter until 2030, lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) progress against each annual milestone;
(b) the number of new fracture liaison services established and the number of patients identified in the preceding year;
(c) any revision to the milestones or timetable, with the reasons for any such revision; and
(d) action being taken to address any shortfall.
(4) In this section “fracture liaison service” means a service for the systematic identification, assessment, treatment and ongoing monitoring of people who have sustained a fragility fracture, for the purpose of reducing their risk of further fractures.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan to roll out fracture liaison services across England and publish reports of progress.
New clause 147—Plan to manage acquired brain injury—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a plan for the management of acquired brain injury across England.
(2) A plan under subsection (1) must include but shall not be limited to—
(a) proposed government actions to prevent acquired brain injuries;
(b) proposed government actions to improve acute treatment for acquired brain injuries;
(c) a statement of priorities regarding the Secretary of State’s approach for rehabilitation and long-term support for persons with acquired brain injuries across public services delivered by—
(i) the Department of Health and Social Care,
(ii) the Department for Education, and
(iii) the Ministry of Justice;
(d) proposals for data sharing between government departments, health care, and rehabilitation providers to improve patient—
(i) identification,
(ii) care, and
(iii) support;
(e) a commitment to providing 95% of people with complex needs with a personalised care plan by 2027;
(f) commitments for research into acquired brain injuries in sport;
(g) any proposed use of directions, guidance, financial assistance, incentives or other mechanisms to secure delivery of the plan’s objectives;
(h) workforce, diagnostic, digital and data requirements for implementation of the plan; and
(i) arrangements for monitoring, publishing and reporting progress against the plan.
(3) The plan under subsection (1) must be laid by the Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of publishing a plan under subsection (1), and every 12 months thereafter until 2030, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the proposals and commitments in the plan.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish their action plan to manage acquired brain injury within 30 days of the passing of this Act.
New clause 148—Radiotherapy cancer treatment services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must include nationally agreed metrics against which integrated care boards must measure and report their investment in, and delivery of, radiotherapy services.
(3) The metrics must include provisions relating to—
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy, including time to definitive treatment;
(b) patient travel times to radiotherapy services, including defining an appropriate recommended travel time;
(c) the number of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and the quality of such radiotherapy;
(d) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment, including the proportion of linear accelerators that are more than 10 years old or otherwise beyond the recommended replacement age;
(e) access to modern radiotherapy techniques and technologies;
(f) radiotherapy capacity against population need and the projected increase in number of cancer patients;
(g) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas;
(h) provision of sustainable, flexible workforce that is equipped to harness advances in radiotherapy for patient benefit; and
(i) investment in radiotherapy services and the extent to which such investment reflects clinical need.
(4) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the metrics in the framework.
(5) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
New clause 149—Modern Service Framework for Respiratory Disease – prioritisation and reporting—
“(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a statement setting out the criteria and process by which the National Quality Board will assess proposals for future Modern Service Frameworks (including respiratory disease), and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the prioritisation of respiratory disease for a Modern Service Framework.
(2) The report under subsection (1)(b) must include—
(a) an assessment of the current burden of respiratory disease in England including—
(i) emergency admissions,
(ii) variation by integrated care board area,
(iii) outcomes;
(b) the evidence of potential for rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity that a respiratory Modern Service Framework could deliver;
(c) the status of existing work on respiratory pathways including for—
(i) pulmonary fibrosis,
(ii) pulmonary rehabilitation,
(iii) diagnostics,
(iv) early detection and lung cancer screening,
(v) supported self-management,
(vi) access to medicines;
(d) the expected timetable for any decision by the National Quality Board on whether to prioritise a respiratory Modern Service Framework; and
(e) interim actions the Secretary of State and NHS England are taking to reduce unwarranted variation and emergency admissions attributable to respiratory disease pending any such decision.
(3) If the National Quality Board decides not to prioritise a respiratory Modern Service Framework within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, within three months of that decision, publish and lay before Parliament an alternative national plan for improving respiratory care that addresses the matters set out in subsection (2)(a) to (c) and (e).
(4) The Secretary of State must publish an updated report under subsection (1)(b), or a progress report against any respiratory Modern Service Framework or alternative plan, at intervals of not more than three years.
(5) In preparing any report or plan under this section the Secretary of State must consult clinicians with expertise in respiratory medicine, organisations representing people with respiratory disease, integrated care boards, and NHS providers of respiratory services.”
New clause 150—Modern Service Framework for Musculoskeletal Care – prioritisation and reporting—
“(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a statement setting out the criteria and process by which the National Quality Board will assess proposals for future Modern Service Frameworks (including musculoskeletal conditions), and
(b) lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the prioritisation of musculoskeletal care for a Modern Service Framework.
(2) The report under subsection (1)(b) must include—
(a) an assessment of the current burden of musculoskeletal conditions in England including—
(i) waiting times,
(ii) emergency admissions or unplanned care,
(iii) variation by integrated care board area,
(iv) impact on work and economic inactivity,
(v) outcomes,
(b) the evidence of potential for rapid and significant improvements in quality of care and productivity that a musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework could deliver;
(c) the status of existing national programmes including—
(i) the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) MSK Community Delivery Programme;
(ii) any related elective recovery or neighbourhood health initiatives,
(d) the expected timetable for any decision by the National Quality Board on whether to prioritise a musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework; and
(e) interim actions the Secretary of State and NHS England are taking to reduce unwarranted variation, waiting times and the impact of musculoskeletal conditions on patients and the wider economy pending any such decision.
(3) If the National Quality Board decides not to prioritise a musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, within three months of that decision, publish and lay before Parliament an alternative national plan for improving musculoskeletal care that addresses the matters set out in subsection (2)(a) to (c) and (e).
(4) The Secretary of State must publish an updated report under subsection (1)(b), or a progress report against any musculoskeletal Modern Service Framework or alternative plan, at intervals of not more than three years.
(5) In preparing any report or plan under this section the Secretary of State must consult clinicians with expertise in musculoskeletal medicine and related professions, organisations representing people with musculoskeletal conditions, integrated care boards, and NHS providers of musculoskeletal services.”
New clause 151—Patient safety recommendations: Government response—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State commissions a review or a report into a patient safety issue.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) decide within six months whether they are going to implement each recommendation of the review;
(b) publish a response to each recommendation with a statement indicating whether each recommendation will be implemented; and
(c) publish a timeline for implementation of recommendations which will be implemented.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to respond to patient safety recommendations.
New clause 159—Mental health waiting time standards and reporting—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 12F (expected mental health spending) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) stating the Secretary of State's expectations for that year regarding performance against the waiting time standards published under section 12FA;”;
(b) in subsection (1), after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) stating the Secretary of State's expectations for that year regarding the relationship between performance against those waiting time standards and expenditure on mental health services, and”;
(c) for subsection (1)(b) substitute—
“(b) explaining the reasons for the expectations stated under paragraphs (a), (aa) and (ab).”.
(3) After section 12F insert—
“12FA Mental health waiting time standards
(1) The Secretary of State must adopt target national waiting time standards covering mental health services, including community and urgent care.
(2) In determining standards under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must have regard to advice from the Chief Medical Officer about the standards necessary to ensure safe and effective mental health care.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish waiting time standards under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations under section 14Z45A to give effect to the waiting time standards published under this section.””
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to adopt and publish waiting time standards for mental services having regard to advice from the Chief Medical Officer. It would expand the Secretary of State’s existing annual reporting duties to parliament to include reporting the NHS performance in meeting the NHS waiting times standards.
New clause 161—Report into the availability and quality of data relating to dementia care—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the availability and quality of data relating to dementia care within 12 months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The report must include an action plan to address gaps in dementia data across prevalence, the health and social care interface, the dementia care pathway, experience of care, and workforce.
(3) The action plan must, in particular, address the absence of key performance measures, including but not limited to—
(a) waiting times to assessment and diagnosis;
(b) non-medication related interventions; and
(c) care and treatment outcomes.”
Amendment 82, in clause 62, page 45, line 37, at end insert—
“(8B) Provision under (8A) about the period within which a recommendation is to be complied with must—
(a) only apply to individual recommendations in the case of exceptional circumstances,
(b) follow a process aligned with NICE's health technology evaluation procedures,
(c) be subject to engagement from industry stakeholders.”
Amendment 106, page 45, line 37, at end insert—
“(8B) Regulations under subsection (8) must include provision about the period within which NICE guideline NG206 on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) must be complied with.
(8C) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206, including the extent to which integrated care boards and relevant NHS bodies have implemented recommendations relating to ME specialist services and severe or very severe ME.”
This amendment would require that a period must be set within which the NICE guideline NG206 on ME must be complied with by ICBs and other health bodies. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on compliance with NICE guideline NG206 across the NHS in England.
Amendment 1, page 45, line 39, leave out clause 63.
Amendment 2, page 46, line 3, leave out clause 64.
Amendment 3, page 46, line 39, leave out clause 65.
Amendment 4, page 47, line 36, leave out clause 66.
Amendment 7, page 48, line 15, leave out clause 68.
This amendment removes the clause abolishing Healthwatch England.
Amendment 5, page 48, line 18, leave out clause 69.
Government amendments 65 and 66.
Amendment 6, page 52, line 34, leave out clause 75.
Government amendments 67 to 69.
Amendment 89, in clause 80, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) has been met.
(3B) The condition is that the Secretary of State has published an impact assessment in respect of the abolition of NHS England that complies with subsection (3C) (a "qualifying impact assessment").
(3C) A qualifying impact assessment must include—
(a) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the total transition costs of abolishing NHS England, including in particular—
(i) redundancy costs;
(ii) the costs of integrating data, digital and information technology systems;
(iii) the costs of reorganising and rehousing staff and functions; and
(iv) productivity losses during the transition period;
(b) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the ongoing annual costs of the restructured Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England, including any costs falling on integrated care boards as a result of the transfer of functions to them;
(c) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the estimated annual savings arising from the abolition, including savings from the elimination of duplicated corporate functions and reduced administrative costs;
(d) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the net present value of the abolition, being the difference between the total costs under paragraphs (a) and (b) and the total benefits under paragraph (c) over a period of not less than ten years;
(e) a statement of the key assumptions underlying the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (d) and an assessment of the sensitivity of those estimates to changes in those assumptions;
(f) an assessment of the risks to the delivery of the anticipated benefits, including the risk of disruption to NHS functions during the transition period; and
(g) a statement of the methodology used to produce the estimates, including any data sources relied upon.
(3D) Before publishing a qualifying impact assessment, the Secretary of State must submit it for independent scrutiny to the Regulatory Policy Committee (or any successor body) and must publish the Committee's opinion on the assessment alongside it.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the qualifying impact assessment and the Committee's opinion before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid unless at least 60 sitting days have elapsed since the qualifying impact assessment was laid under subsection (3E).”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish, and submit to independent scrutiny, an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England, containing quantified cost and benefit figures, before making regulations to abolish the body.
Amendment 90, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) is met.
(3B) The Secretary of State must publish a plan setting out how health services provided by or under arrangements made by NHS bodies are to work alongside and be integrated with the social care system in England (the "health and social care integration plan").
(3C) Before preparing the health and social care integration plan, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care (or any successor body undertaking that Commission's work) in any report published by the Commission; and
(b) the need to reflect any recommendations of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in the plan which are relevant to the interface between health services and adult social care.
(3D) The health and social care integration plan must include—
(a) a description of the structural and operational arrangements for joint working between NHS bodies and local authority social care services following the abolition of NHS England;
(b) proposals for how the transfer of NHS England's functions to the Secretary of State will affect the coordination of health and social care commissioning, including commissioning of services for people with complex needs spanning health and social care;
(c) arrangements for reducing delayed discharges from hospital attributable to the absence of suitable social care provision;
(d) proposals for how the funding flows between the NHS and the social care system, including NHS Continuing Healthcare, will be managed following the abolition;
(e) the workforce implications for the health and social care sectors arising from the abolition of NHS England and the steps to be taken to address them; and
(f) a timetable for implementing the arrangements described in the plan.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the health and social care integration plan before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) must be subject to the affirmative procedure.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid before either House of Parliament until at least 60 sitting days after the health and social care integration plan has been laid under subsection (3E).
(3H) In this section—
“NHS body” has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 2006;
“social care system” means the system for the provision of care and support under the Care Act 2014 and services provided by local authorities in the exercise of their functions relating to adult social care.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using their powers for its abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows (including NHS Continuing Healthcare), delayed hospital discharges, and workforce.
Amendment 25, page 112, line 18, leave out schedule 9.
Amendment 12, in schedule 9, page 130, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) After paragraph 6(8) insert—
“(9) A committee of the Commission is to be appointed in accordance with regulations.
(10) The purpose of the committee is to oversee the health services safety investigation functions formerly conducted by HSSIB, transferred to the Care Quality Commission under the Health Act 2026.
(11) The committee is to be operationally independent from the Care Quality Commission.
(12) The committee is to consist of a chair appointed by the Secretary of State, and not less than six and not more than twelve other members appointed by the chair.
(13) A majority of the members of the committee must not be members of the Care Quality Commission.
(14) So far as is reasonably practicable, the persons appointed to the committee must include persons with knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of functions under this paragraph.””
This amendment would ensure that oversight of HSSIB’s functions would remain operationally independent of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) following the transfer of its functions to the CQC.
Amendment 8, page 134, line 20, leave out schedule 10.
This amendment removes the schedule abolishing Healthwatch England.
Amendment 9, page 136, line 1, leave out schedule 11.
This amendment removes the schedule abolishing Local Healthwatch organisations.
Amendment 78, schedule 11, page 137, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) In making arrangements under subsection (2), an integrated care board must have regard to the need to facilitate participation by persons who may experience barriers to engagement, including persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.”
This amendment would require an integrated care board, in making arrangements for gathering patient views, to have regard to the need to facilitate participation by persons who may experience barriers to engagement, including persons with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions.
Government amendment 72.
Amendment 100, in schedule 12, page 155, line 5, at end insert—
“(10) An order under this section that establishes, varies the area of, abolishes or merges an integrated care board may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 33, in schedule 12, page 156, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) must publish any evidence the Secretary of State has received in respect of the impact of the proposal.”
Government amendments 73 to 75.
Karin Smyth
I know that many hon. Members want to talk about the provisions in the Bill covering many important issues. I will therefore speak briefly about two Government amendments relating to medical device licensing and information sharing.
I will first address new clause 94 regarding medical devices licensing, and consequential amendments new clauses 99 to 101 regarding medical devices disclosure. These amendments are about ensuring that Great Britain’s medical devices regulatory framework remains fit for the future. As we know, medical technology is evolving rapidly, particularly in areas such as software and artificial intelligence, while our current framework was designed for a very different technological landscape. This set of amendments establishes the statutory foundation for a future medical device licensing regime, applying to Great Britain only. EU medical devices legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland.
Such a regime would require medical devices to be licensed and certain persons operating within the supply chain to hold a licence. By placing the detail in the regulations, the amendment allows us to work with patients, healthcare professionals and the medical device sector to create a regulatory framework that protects patients, supports innovation and strengthens the UK’s life sciences sector.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In the aftermath of the Windsor framework and the damage done to intra-UK trade, section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was passed, which was said to promise that there would be no further export procedures that could impact adversely on trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Yet, in new clause 94, we have such constraints in the imposition of a licensing programme, whereby to bring—I will not say “export”, as it is an internal market—a medical device from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, a licence is needed by the recipient. How is that compatible with section 45B of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act?
Karin Smyth
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—we have spent many long hours in this place discussing the arrangements with regard to our leaving the European Union—there are different regulations, as a result of Brexit, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As is currently the case, due to the Windsor framework, that results in Northern Ireland following the EU device regulations. This has been discussed with the Northern Ireland and Windsor framework taskforce in the Cabinet Office, and we are content that the provisions are right, given the framework’s application. I know and understand the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, and I am sure that he will pursue it with the Government in other areas.
New clauses 95 and 98 update and clarify the Secretary of State’s information-sharing powers for medicines and medical devices. They provide a clearer legal framework for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to share information with UK health systems, organisations and trusted international partners. The current legislative framework does not always provide the MHRA with the powers or clarity it needs to share information quickly and effectively, and this creates barriers to collaboration, including with the NHS. The new clauses will address these challenges, providing a clear statutory basis for information sharing.
There is currently no explicit statutory domestic information-sharing power for medicines, whereas there is for medical devices. The new clauses bring information-sharing powers about medicines in line with those for medical devices and updates the list of statutory purposes for which the MHRA may share information. Importantly, these reforms do not weaken existing safeguards. Patient information will not be shared internationally without consent, and domestic protections under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation remain unchanged. These new clauses and amendments will act in the interests of patients, and I commend them to the House.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I think the Minister has finished her remarks.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As is now routine, I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician, a member of the British Medical Association and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Yesterday the Government voted not to introduce a backstop to decide on the Hughes report. I submitted a written question that also had a deadline of last night to ask when they were going to respond, and they have not answered that either. Taking their time about something is one thing, but for the Government to completely ignore victims, refusing to give an answer and refusing to provide a backstop or a deadline, is frankly shameful.
Patient safety is really important, and one key element to improving it is striking a good balance between accountability and blame. If we do not hold people accountable for their actions, they may not be as careful, but if they feel that their superiors are looking to find fault, they will be defensive and may cover things up. That makes it hard to get to the root cause and prevent mistakes from happening again. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body, or HSSIB, was set up with this problem in mind. Like the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, it has a safe space. This means that people are not held legally responsible for what they reveal to that team. They can then get to the bottom of why things are going wrong and find system errors. People come forward because they know and trust that HSSIB is independent, but this Labour Government want to change that.
The Health Bill will abolish HSSIB and transfer all its functions to the Care Quality Commission—the body responsible for regulating health and social care. This is the same CQC that, according to Ministers, is not fit for purpose. Why are the Government doing this? Ministers cite a review by Dr Penny Dash that said that the patient safety landscape was “cluttered” and “fragmented”, but too many different organisations are producing too many recommendations. That report was narrow in scope, and the clutter is not caused by HSSIB. In recent years, 30 public inquiries produced 1,400 recommendations, but HSSIB produced just 56.
The Government have suggested that moving HSSIB into the CQC can improve the quality of care and safety, but it is not clear how. People come forward to HSSIB precisely because it is a safe space, and this Government are removing the confidence in that safe space. For the new set-up to work, frontline workers will need to believe that the new unit in the CQC is independent, despite the law making it clear that it is not. The Government’s impact assessment says that the national quality board will provide clear direction to the new investigations unit, but the national quality board is tied to the NHS, so how does that square with the new unit staying independent? The impact assessment also says that the vast majority of investigations are expected to be directed by the Health Secretary. How can we be sure that the new unit will have the power and resources to look at things that might be politically difficult for the Government? How will the people in charge of the CQC balance the responsibility of investigating with the responsibility of maintaining that safe space?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On the question of how the CQC leadership becomes conflicted, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in an Adjournment debate I held in July, the then Patient Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), made it clear that the person responsible for deciding what safe space information might be released would be the chief executive of the CQC? If the chief executive of the CQC is to see all that information, how would he or she not be able to use it, or be tempted to use it, when he or she inspects hospitals for the purposes of the CQC? Would the safe space not then be hopelessly conflicted, and therefore lose public confidence?
Dr Johnson
Absolutely; my hon. Friend has obviously read my speech. What would happen if the new unit identified the CQC itself as the problem? Ministers have not provided good answers to these questions. To be honest, they cannot, because the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. Either HSSIB remains independent or it is folded into the CQC and loses its independence. The Government are either decluttering the landscape by removing an organisation or simply hiding it inside another organisation, to the detriment of both. We have tabled amendment 1 to protect HSSIB, and I urge the Government to support it in the interests of patient safety.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about HSSIB. We have heard time and again that frontline staff value the safety that HSSIB provides to them and the confidence they have in reporting. Given that we in this Chamber have heard some harrowing stories about maternity services around the country, does she not think it is important that we listen to the staff, and not just one individual with a different point of view?
Dr Johnson
As always, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
HSSIB has recently produced a report, which it would benefit the Government to listen to. The House will be aware that the advice and guidance service provides GPs with specialist advice, which sometimes avoids referrals. However, Ministers have made it mandatory to ask for advice before certain types of referrals, and set an aim for one in four referrals to be diverted back. The Government said that they were not rationing care or meddling with waiting lists—that there was nothing to see here, and that the Opposition were spreading misinformation—but HSSIB has published an interim report linking this process to delays in patient care, including cancer diagnoses. New clause 141 asks the Government to suspend the new process until they have properly considered it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Lady may be aware that the Health and Social Care Committee has a pre-appointment hearing with the incoming chair of the CQC tomorrow morning. One question I would like to ask them hinges on the answer to another question, on which I would have loved an update from the Minister. The previous Secretary of State said that HSSIB will not be merged with the CQC until the CQC is ready, but we have never had a list from the Government as to exactly what metrics they will use to decide when that happens. That will have a bearing on what kinds of questions we ask the chair and CEO. What specifically do the Government mean by “ready”? Does the hon. Lady not see that as a problem?
Dr Johnson
I absolutely do. The Government have said that the CQC is not fit for purpose, yet they are now asking it to do things it did not do before, including not only HSSIB but event healthcare management, as the hon. Lady will be aware. It is absolutely right that the Government pause and think this one through again.
One of our other amendments concerns puberty blockers. One of the first rules of medicine is primum non nocere—first, do no harm—and yet here we have a Labour Government sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children as young as 11 on puberty-blocking drugs. That was said to make the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), “uneasy”. Why was he uneasy? Perhaps because these are powerful drugs that could cause serious long-term harm, because most children get better by themselves, because we cannot reliably identify which children will persist with a trans identity and which will not, because the huge increase in girls experiencing gender dysphoria has not been adequately explained or because the Tavistock data has not yet been reviewed in the data linkage study. There are many reasons for concern, but I am aware that we are short of time.
It is difficult for a clinician to tell which children’s symptoms will self-resolve and which will not. As a result, we risk putting a large number of children on puberty blockers to assess the effects on, as the former Health Secretary put it, a
“very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]
That means the results of the investigation may be unreliable, and it could cause unnecessary harm to children, so why are the Government not ensuring that the data linkage study is, at the very least, done first?
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and the tone in which she is conducting this debate. Would she feel more comfortable, however, if a transgender man with balding hair and a full beard, who was behaving like a man and full of testosterone, was attending a female toilet facility at night at a motorway service station? I would not feel safe, but it seems she would feel safer in that situation than she would with a trans woman getting changed in front of nurses or attending a toilet.
Dr Johnson
I am not sure why the hon. Member has reached that conclusion. I am saying that this is based on biology, and people who are trans require the same protections as people who are not—that is what I have said very clearly.
The Darlington nurses were particularly brave in bringing their case forward. The cost was £187,000 in damages after an employment tribunal ruled in favour of them. That is a victory for dignity, for women and for common sense, but it is also a significant cost of public money to an NHS trust because it decided not to follow the law. That money could have been spent on patient care. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that this guidance is fully and properly implemented across the NHS? How will she ensure that a repeat of the Darlington nurses case does not happen again, and what guidance has been given to NHS managers on how to handle this?
The Minister for Women and Equalities did not help matters. She had the responsibility to sign off the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice to inform businesses, services and public bodies how to implement the Supreme Court’s guidance in law. But for over a year, the Government failed to lift a finger to enforce the law. For over a year, businesses, hospitals, service providers and public bodies were left waiting for the Government to tell them what the official guidance said. Now that it is here, we need to know how it is being implemented. How will the Minister ensure that this guidance is implemented universally in our NHS? How will the Government ensure that single-sex spaces are protected? What provision will they make for transgender individuals? What reassurance can the Minister give to women working in our NHS that they are safe? Our new clause 143 makes it clear that both staff and patients in the NHS must have access to single-sex spaces to protect their dignity and their privacy. I hope the Minister will be able to support this; I cannot see why she would not.
The Government have also decided to abolish Healthwatch and reduce the number of local Healthwatch branches. Healthwatch England has been engaging with patients since 2013, with more than 150 operating in a hub-and-spoke model, but that is about to change. Why? One reason seems to be to avoid duplication. The Government are clearly not keen on lots of Healthwatch branches doing the same thing in different areas of the country and feel that some branches may operate better than others. They say that they want to bring feedback closer to decision makers, but is that a good idea?
The Government could have chosen to improve Healthwatch as it stands. In 2023-24, more than 925,000 people used Healthwatch to get advice and information, and more than 300,000 shared their experiences to improve services. They could have increased awareness further and developed a clear feedback chain, but instead they have decided to abolish Healthwatch altogether. That is of grave concern. How can patients be expected to complain to the system about the system? The Prime Minister previously wrote:
“People speak to Healthwatch because they are outside the system—they are impartial, trusted, and provide a safe space for concerns to be shared.”
On that, he was right, and I ask the Minister to accept our amendment on this subject.
We have tabled a number of other amendments, including one on fracture liaison services, one that would produce a modern service framework for musculoskeletal care and others on radiotherapy, respiratory health, brain injury and the Government’s new medical devices regulations. However, I appreciate that we are short of time, so I will just make two short comments, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker,
First, I of course agree with the intent of the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 140, but it requires the presence of HSSIB, and since the Government seem hellbent on removing that, I do not know how the amendment would work. New clause 81, a Back-Bench amendment that has been selected by Mr Speaker, relates to another really important issue. As a paediatrician, I see the importance of what it suggests. The regulations would need to be carefully drafted for those who have a brief illness, to define life-threatening illness more clearly and to avoid duplication of work, but in principle, it is an important amendment. I commend our amendments to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the exception of Front-Bench speeches, there will be an immediate three-minute time limit.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am speaking today in support of new clauses 113 and 114, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and to which I have added my name.
I say at the outset that I am in full support of this Government’s ambitions on cancer. I welcome the recent investment in radiotherapy equipment, and I sincerely want the national cancer plan, which was published in February, to succeed. But I speak as someone who worked in the health service, who is a cancer survivor and who has taken a particular interest in this issue, not least as vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. It is in that capacity, and as a supporter of what the Government are trying to achieve, that I respectfully ask Ministers to accept one or both of these new clauses.
By way of brief explanation, new clause 113 requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework of agreed metrics for radiotherapy, requires integrated care boards to report annually against those targets and requires a report to this House once a year. New clause 114 asks very straightforwardly for a single review of access to radiotherapy and radiotherapy waiting times to be laid before Parliament within six months.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ethnic inequalities we see in cancer outcomes and access to cancer treatment such as radiotherapy should also be included in the suggested review?
Grahame Morris
This is a huge issue that should concern everyone. I believe there is cross-party consensus on the issue of health inequalities and huge variation in access depending on which part of the country people live in. That is an absolutely valid point.
We know the international consensus is that around half of all cancer patients have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy at some point in their treatment. We should be aware that here in the United Kingdom in 2021, the last date for which figures were available, only 35% of cancer patients received it as part of their primary treatment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the excellent points he is making. Let me add that in Lancashire and south Cumbria, only 29% of cancer patients get access to radiotherapy. He will be aware the Government’s target is that 85% of people diagnosed with cancer should be treated within 62 days, but only 41% of patients who are recommended radiotherapy get treated in those 62 days. He will also know that for every four weeks of delay in cancer treatment, there is a 10% lower chance of survival. Should the Government not accept new clause 114 to make it mandatory for people to be treated within two months so that they get the best chance of survival?
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head—that is perfectly put. I believe there is cross-party consensus that this is the way forward. Over the last 16 years that I have been a Member, along with the hon. Gentleman, I have presented the case to a whole succession of Ministers from various parties, all of whom seemed to be in agreement. We definitely have an opportunity to restore what was once a world-class cancer service and get us back to where the international benchmarks say that we should be.
As I am sure Members are aware, responsibility for commissioning radiotherapies was devolved to the integrated care boards. I can understand the logic of moving commissioning closer to local populations. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who tabled the new clause, and I do not seek to undo that. However, we wish to stress to the House that radiotherapy is not an ordinary local service, and it should not be considered as one. It is delivered from a very limited number of highly specialised centres dependent on capital equipment with long replacement cycles. It relies on a small, highly skilled workforce of about 6,000 people, all of whom take years to train, all the while relying on physical infrastructure that cannot be commissioned at short notice.
Patients routinely cross integrated care board boundaries to reach these specialist centres. Many boards, entirely understandably, do not have dedicated radiotherapy expertise in house. In August 2023, 70% of integrated care boards had no named person responsible for ensuring sufficient radiotherapy treatment capacity at all. I am willing to work with Ministers to seek a resolution with the solutions that we propose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Yesterday, I highlighted our concerns about the implications of quick-fix, top-down reorganisation for the sovereignty of the NHS and the interests of patients. In a system that already spends too much time and money reacting to failure, rather than planning for success, patient safety is already under threat. Rather than addressing those failings, this Bill is at risk of making a bonfire of patient safety. Our amendments would reverse the gutting of safety mechanisms from the NHS, all of which have been painstakingly introduced after far too many scandals.
Amendments 8 and 9 would restore Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations, while new clause 14 would restore Healthwatch funding after 10 years of cuts to its service. Given that Healthwatch was originally established as a response to the devastating Mid Staffordshire scandal, its abolition would be a step backwards, showing that lessons have not been learned. An independent patient voice is essential to shape local services and highlight where they are not working well, and folding it into existing NHS structures risks destroying the trust that exists precisely because of its independence.
Helen Morgan
I am not going to give way, because there are many colleagues who wish to speak and there is very limited time. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me.
Another vital body for safeguarding and investigating patient safety is the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which again functions well because of the trust NHS professionals have in its independence and objectivity. Both would be lost under the proposal to roll it into the CQC. Our amendment 12 would ensure that HSSIB’s functions remain operationally independent of the CQC, so that the NHS is not left to mark its own homework. Together, these amendments are designed so that patients are protected from another Mid Staffordshire, another Shrewsbury and Telford, another Nottingham, another East Kent or another Morecambe Bay. Rash decision making must not be allowed to put patients at risk.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, and was pleased to be a member of the Bill Committee. I also welcome the Government’s new clauses, about which the Minister has spoken today.
New clause 159, to which I have added my name, seeks to address a long-standing legislative omission in our health service. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for tabling it. For over a decade since the Health and Social Care Act 2012, Parliament has recognised the principle of parity of esteem between physical and mental health, but without statutory accountability that parity has remained an aspiration rather than a clinical reality.
The scale of the problem is clear. NHS data shows that 1.87 million adults and more than 576,000 children and young people currently hold open referrals for mental health services. While the Government set clear targets to reduce physical healthcare waiting lists, mental health services are excluded from these core constitutional ambitions, and the division has severe consequences. A survey conducted by Rethink Mental Illness found that 83% of patients experienced a deterioration in their mental health while waiting for support, and that nearly a third of those whose health worsened attempted suicide.
New clause 159 would require the Secretary of State to publish national waiting time standards for mental health services within 12 months of the Bill passing into law. The fact is that what is measured is addressed, so we need to give the same attention to mental health that we rightly give to physical health measures. These standards, which cover both community and urgent care, must be developed in consultation with the chief medical officer. Crucially, the new clause mandates the Secretary of State to report performance against those waiting times, alongside mental health expenditure, to Parliament every year. That will ensure that the funding that we allocate in the House is linked transparently to patient outcomes. If we do not measure waiting times we cannot manage them, and patients will continue to be left until they are in crisis before they receive support. It is time that we started to pay the same attention to mental health as we do to physical health, so that we can really achieve parity of esteem.
The Government have set out a welcome and ambitious path to rebuild our NHS, and achieving true parity of esteem is central to that mission. I urge the Minister to look closely at new clause 159 as a constructive measure.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I will speak about new clause 41, which stands in my name.
We put enormous, unquestioning trust in those who care for the bodies of our loved ones when they die. However, in this Chamber six months ago, I told a former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), about Elkin and Bell, the Gosport funeral directors who left 46 bodies decaying in an unrefrigerated room. One of them, an elderly gentleman whose family had already paid for his cremation, was left decomposing for 36 days. I said then that the funeral sector was nothing better than a lawless wild west with no mandatory qualifications to practise, no accreditation for professionals, no licensing of businesses, no inspection of premises, and no law to fall back on when things go wrong. It was only persistence and ingenuity on the part of Hampshire constabulary that saw Elkin and Bell brought to justice. The Minister at the time told me that a decision on regulation would come in the Government’s full answer to the Fuller inquiry, and we are still awaiting.
Since then, matters have worsened. In July, Robert Bush, a funeral director in Hull, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to 67 charges for bodies left decomposing in squalor. Forty-six grieving families had been reunited with the wrong ashes, but the real horror is that these will not be isolated cases. Under the law as it stands today, almost anyone can set themselves up as a funeral director.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this area in the neighbouring constituency. The vast majority of funeral directors operate with integrity, compassion and professionalism. Does she agree that, as reputable businesses, they are crying out for robust regulation?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I genuinely could not agree more. This is not at attack on the profession. The vast majority of funeral directors do their job with extraordinary skill, great care and huge professional integrity. It is precisely because of the trust that grieving families place in them every single day that we cannot allow a rogue minority to drag the reputation of the whole sector through the mud.
In a written statement on 1 September, the Government said they intended that proposals for regulation would be forthcoming, but they set out no timetable, and detailed plans were promised only “in due course”. Families have already waited years and cannot be expected to wait indefinitely. New clause 41 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill passing, to extend the remit of the Human Tissue Authority beyond hospital mortuaries, which it currently covers, to funeral directors, private mortuaries, direct cremation services and any other organisation that transports or holds the bodies of the deceased.
Stuart Andrew
Does my hon. Friend agree that Donna Ockenden’s report into what happened in Nottingham, particularly the harrowing stories of the mortuary issues there, adds to the case that she is making?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the fantastic work that he did as shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and he is absolutely right. We really need the full response to the Fuller report in order to implement not only changes to mortuaries, but all the other amendments that it recommended.
New clause 41 would place a duty on the Human Tissue Authority to establish and maintain a register of every business brought within its oversight, with how that register operates set by regulation, so that for the first time a grieving family could check, before they hand over the body of a loved one, whether the business in front of them is properly overseen. I recognise that the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) has tabled new clause 42 on a new, bespoke freestanding regulator. Both new clauses would fix the same issue, and either will do.
The key thing is that this is a moment for the Government to seize, not resist. Ministers have already said that, in principle, they agree with what new clause 41 would require of them. Every trade body agrees. Every family who has been failed agrees. Every Member from across the House who signed our letter agrees. It feels like the Government agree, so I ask the Minister to tell the House exactly when a statutory scheme will be brought forward by the Department of Health and Social Care, and to set out the timetable for implementation.
None of us is comfortable dwelling on our own mortality, which is exactly why the funeral sector has gone on for so long without proper scrutiny. It is a truism—we hear it all the time—that funerals are for the living; they are for families to say goodbye to their loved ones with dignity. They should be able to grieve without the added horror of questioning whether the body they buried was the right one, or whether the ashes they scattered belonged to the right person. Robert Bush’s sentencing should be the last time that this House has to debate such a gruesome case, but it will not be unless the Government push ahead to close this regulatory black hole.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I am sure that many Members from across the House are aware of the campaign in memory of Hugh Menai-Davis, the son of my constituents Ceri and Frances who tragically passed away at the age of just six. As part of that campaign, the amendments that I have tabled to the Bill are designed to support families at the most difficult time imaginable.
Our national health service and welfare state have changed and evolved over almost a century, and we should always keep a close watch on how faithfully they remain connected to their founding principles. Support “from the cradle to the grave” should not a dusty slogan; it must be a constant aspiration. Wherever gaps or shortcoming are identified, we must address them.
It should concern us all that support for parents of seriously ill children is one such gap. When a child becomes seriously ill, the NHS mobilises around the child, quite rightly, but parents must mobilise around everything else—getting to work and hospital appointments, looking after other children, managing existing caring responsibilities, and somehow keeping on top of bills, rent or mortgages that do not stop when a child becomes ill. When all of this takes place alongside the fear that their child may die, the pressure on families is near impossible to bear.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I would like to speak to new clause 137. Cancer Research UK estimates that, in the six months since the national cancer plan was published, over 168,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in England. The number of those diagnosed is at a record high and this is projected to continue. Almost one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime, and no one in this country is untouched by the disease. I welcome the Government’s ambition to improve cancer outcomes in the national cancer plan. Alongside my amendment to the Health Bill, my current private Member’s Bill seeks to guarantee that the Government make progress towards delivering these targets and are held to account by Parliament on that.
Over the past five decades, cancer survival has more than doubled because of lifesaving research, earlier detection and cutting-edge treatments. However, in the last decade progress has slowed, and the 10-year cancer survival index was better in the early 2000s than in the 2010s, so we are in danger of going backwards. The national cancer plan commits to meeting cancer waiting times targets by the end of this Parliament. The previous Government failed to do that, and I really hope that this Government will manage it. It is also important that these targets are met, alongside a full range of commitments in the plan.
The Health and Care Act 2022 required the Secretary of State to include cancer outcome objectives in the annual mandate set by the Secretary of State for NHS England, and those outcome objectives explicitly took priority over other cancer objectives. I have tabled this amendment because the current Health Bill abolishes that mandate, including the previous statutory requirement for cancer outcome objectives to be prioritised over other cancer objectives, and a similar duty has not been replicated elsewhere in the Bill.
With the removal of the statutory requirement to prioritise cancer outcomes over other cancer objectives in the health system, there is a very real concern that progress on cancer outcomes risks being deprioritised amid the competing priorities of a Department facing many external pressures. I am therefore seeking assurances from the Minister that, despite the disruption of the ongoing merger and the removal of the cancer outcomes clause, progress on delivering the transformation laid out in the national cancer plan will be delivered, and that it remains a priority for the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to guarantee that the capacity needed to drive forward this essential work on cancer is protected.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
If I may begin on a personal note, just three weeks ago I had a second operation on my back, and I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to the staff who cared for me, from the clinicians who treated me to everyone involved in my care and recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.]
Too often our access to healthcare depends on our postcode. That postcode lottery is stark in a number of areas, but nowhere more so than with IVF. As chair of the APPG on fertility, I have raised this issue repeatedly with Ministers. I again invite Ministers to attend our fertility roundtable tomorrow and to commit to ensuring that every ICB follows, at the very least, the NICE guidelines on access to IVF and fertility treatment.
We must strengthen the role of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in neighbourhood health planning and NHS commissioning. Voluntary organisations understand the barriers to care for hard-to-reach communities and often have trusted relationships with communities that statutory services struggle to reach. We see that particularly clearly in HIV and AIDS provision. Voluntary organisations have been fundamental to the UK’s response for decades, through prevention, testing, peer support, tackling stigma and supporting people living with HIV. I am extremely grateful to the National AIDS Trust for working with me on the new clauses, and I thank Ministers for their constructive engagement. Members of the LGBT+ community must have trust in healthcare providers, and community groups bridge that gap when needed.
New clauses 142 and 143 would actively harm vitally needed healthcare. The provision in new clause 142 has already been rejected in Committee, and we see it for what it is: an opportunity to attack some of the most vulnerable in our society. Access to much-needed healthcare has already been paused in the UK, and if access to treatment for gender dysphoria is now to be dependent upon additional research, the pathways trial must go ahead without further delay.
The provisions in new clause 143 were also rejected in Committee and are another attempt to vilify. The amendment fails to recognise the framework already in place to ensure that single-sex services are provided where they meet the requirements of the Equality Act. Neither the code nor the Supreme Court judgment mandate the provision of single-sex facilities. Providers must still consider whether the service falls within an exception within the Equality Act, whether single-sex provision is proportionate, what the impact might be on trans people, and what mitigation might be necessary.
I welcome the 10-year health plan. We have made great strides in repairing the damage done to our NHS—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I would very much have liked to have discussed the medical devices questions arising from the Bill. The Minister made an incredibly short speech about that important matter. It is quite clear that these provisions are part of the covert dynamic alignment with the EU and the covert rejoin agenda being pursued by the Government. It raises all sorts of constitutional questions, but those are not for today.
I will concentrate on HSSIB. I rise to support amendments 1 to 4, which would remove the abolition of HSSIB from the Bill. The Government have singularly failed to make the case for removing this crucial safety investigation function. It did not exist until recently, and now they want to scrub it out. I suspect that is because too many people in the health system do not like being held to account by an independent investigative body.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The Minister shakes her head, but she is yet to give a good reason as to why this measure is in the Bill.
When we had an Adjournment debate in July with the then Minister for patient safety, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), she could not answer the question of who would conduct independent safety investigations in the NHS after the abolition of HSSIB. She said that safety investigations would be conducted by the Care Quality Commission, but she could not actually claim that they would be independent; as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) demonstrated, they would not be.
If, as it seems, it is intended that safety investigations should be carried out by the CQC unaffected by the transfer, why make the transfer at all? How much is this transfer going to cost? I asked the Minister, in a letter I sent her after the debate in July, to give us the information on how much the transfer of all this would cost. Nothing has arrived. I never had a reply to the letter. Of course, the Government have changed the Minister and the new Minister for patient safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is not in the House today. I rather suspect that she is more sympathetic to this argument than the Minister sitting on the Front Bench today.
In our earlier exchanges we discovered and once again exposed how the safe space will be brutally compromised by the fact that it will be housed in a regulator with, inevitably, other ulterior motives. The chief executive of the CQC is wantonly conflicted in terms of looking after the safe space, so he cannot be the one left in charge of that function.
The real point here is that we are missing the opportunity to save so much money. Governments keep having public inquiries. The EPUT—Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust—public inquiry, affecting my constituency, cost in its first year £5 million, and in its second year it is costing another £5 million. The whole budget for HSSIB was only £6.3 million a year, yet it does scores of investigations, not just one inquiry. The Ockenden inquiry cost £14 million. If we could save just a fraction of the cost of medical negligence, which is £3.6 billion a year, HSSIB would pay for itself.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Clauses 5 and 6 place duties on the Secretary of State to promote patient involvement, patient choice and innovation. My new clauses 86 and 87 would apply those principles to psychedelic-assisted therapy treatments involving schedule 1 controlled substances.
I have been pleased to be a trustee of the charity Drug Science, which has allowed me to talk to researchers who are looking at therapeutic treatments using what are called psychedelic drugs. Around the world there is growing evidence of the successful treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, trauma, mental health issues and end-of-life distress using these drugs. For some patients they are absolutely revelatory. They change lives for the better and can relieve the burden of those conditions on the wider health service.
Researchers tell me, however, that the barriers the current system puts in place really restrict research. Research involving schedule 1 controlled substances generally requires a Home Office licence, and the bureaucracy and inertia in the system adds delay, cost and an administrative burden to the extent that research grants are being lost because of delays.
The issue has already been considered. In 2023 the Home Affairs Committee recommended urgently moving psychedelic drugs to schedule 2 in order to facilitate research. Later that year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that research using schedule 1 drugs in universities and hospitals should be exempt from the Home Office domestic licencing requirement and should instead operate under schedule 2 controls. In 2025 the Government accepted the ACMD recommendations in principle. There is supposed to be a pilot of a proposed extension to test operational feasibility, but that has not happened. The Government said the policy work was under way and that further plans would be published in due course, but without a timetable for implementation. My new clause 86 would make it happen. Other jurisdictions are ahead of us on this issue. The US Department of Defence and the US Department of Veterans Affairs are already funding clinical trials for military personnel and veterans.
New clause 87 concerns compassionate access to treatment. International research has identified potential in some treatment-resistant psychiatric conditions and end-of-life distress. There is international precedent. The 2022 Canadian special access programme has allowed clinicians to request restricted drugs, including psilocybin and MDMA, to treat those conditions. We can learn from those experiences.
Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss these issues, and for her agreement on the principle of enabling the clinical research of these drugs and her commitment to get back to me to outline how the Government will take them further.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I will speak to new clauses 116 and 117, which I have tabled.
Clover Carkeet, from my constituency, is a delightful seven-year-old girl who has suffered from intractable epilepsy since she was 12 weeks old. Clover’s seizures could be controlled only by huge doses of steroids, leaving her very unwell, until her parents secured a private prescription for medical cannabis, reducing her seizures by 95%. Medical cannabis is legal and can be bought privately under NHS supervision, but it is not routinely available on the NHS. As a result, families are faced with an impossible choice: fund thousands of pounds a month to pay privately, or watch their child suffer while relying on the treatments available through the NHS. Why are parents being made to make that choice? Colleagues across the House, including the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), have long campaigned on the issue and support new clause 116, which calls on the Secretary of State to assess the availability of medical cannabis on the NHS for children. I hope the Government will support this new clause too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front Bench. I call the Minister.
Karin Smyth
We have genuinely had a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, and I want to try to address all the points that have been raised. I think there is broad agreement across the House on the goals that we are seeking to achieve with the Bill: safer care, better outcomes and a stronger voice for patients. Every patient deserves safe and high-quality care, every community deserves to have its voice heard, and everyone should be able to access the care they need, when they need it. The question before us is how best to deliver those ambitions.
In general, we do not believe that the current landscape works, and that better outcomes are always achieved through new reporting requirements, additional layers of statutory process or more bureaucracy. Instead, we are committed to devolving responsibility and to empowering leaders in the NHS, while also holding them directly accountable, so that the NHS is focused on delivery and improving care.
I will begin with Healthwatch. I think there is broad consensus that we want to see patient voices heard strongly at every level of the healthcare system—it is something that all MPs feel strongly about, dealing with constituents as we do. Hearing the patient and user voice results in better decisions in a system that is designed around them—a system that is better able to correct when things go wrong.
Our ambition is to ensure that insight and experience from patients, service users and communities is part of commissioning and service planning decisions, rather than being held at arm’s length and outsourced. Our ambition is that this is done effectively everywhere. It is about strengthening the power of patients’ voices inside the NHS, where decisions are taken, not silencing criticism of those decisions. Within our approach, integrated care boards and local authorities will be expected to engage with people in their areas and will have a statutory duty to obtain their views.
That is a core part of the new strategic role of ICBs, and it involves transparency about what people have told the system, what the system has done in response and how learning is shared across partners. ICBs will be held to account if they do not demonstrate those elements. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in this place and in Committee, and as the Bill moves to the other place, I can commit to working closely with colleagues across this House and in the other place in order to review these provisions and ensure that our approach sufficiently empowers and devolves to local populations. We all want to ensure that the changes deliver for patients and service users, building public trust and ensuring that their voice is embedded in the care they receive.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The CEO of Healthwatch Norfolk said today:
“To cease the statutory functions of Healthwatch without a suitable alternative in place…is to risk another major failing in patient safety and scrutiny of the health system.”
Did the Minister’s remarks just now suggest that the Government may be reviewing the plans to scrap Healthwatch?
Karin Smyth
It will not be a surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his proposition, although I commend the work that many people have done in Healthwatch. We want to work with people in the other place to make sure that this is the right way forward.
I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate HSSIB, because it requires more discussion, although we had a good debate in Committee. We have heard many discussions today. I have met the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and I hear what he is saying; I will ensure that he gets a response to his letter from the new Minister for Patient Safety—asap, as they say.
It is an issue that we need to get absolutely right. We all know, from our experience with patients and families, about the importance of creating a culture in which concerns can be raised without fear and lessons are learned effectively. The Government fully agree with those objectives. Our view is that patient safety, in line with the Dash review, is best served by clear lines of accountability, effective independent scrutiny, and a relentless focus on learning and improvement. We are therefore transferring HSSIB’s functions to the CQC to ensure that learning from investigations can more readily inform improvement activity across the system.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the investigation arm has the autonomy to investigate the qualifying incidents that it deems appropriate free from interference, and I can give the House the assurance that we will work with the executive of HSSIB and the CQC to ensure that their operating model upholds this operational independence.
In response to the Chair of the Health Committee, who is not in her place, let me say that there is obviously no one single metric by which to judge the suitability of the CQC. It is usual in the Department’s oversight of arm’s length bodies and independent regulators to look at things like stable leadership, IT capability, governance and operational effectiveness. This is something I am sure the Select Committee can help with.
Karin Smyth
I apologise, but I am going to press on. There is a lot to get through.
We are committed to tackling health inequalities wherever they arise. There are strong duties on both ICBs and the Secretary of State to tackle these inequalities, and we remain firmly committed to doing so. We continue to drive forward improvement plans including the national cancer plan and the mental health strategy, which will transform mental health care into a system that responds and intervenes early, reduces waiting times for support, and ultimately supports people to participate fully in education. I note in particular that the Government are already making record investment in mental health. All ICBs are expected to meet the mental health investment standard over the next three years, and all are forecast to meet it for 2026-27.
We are also committed to delivering the national cancer plan and focused on driving improvements, including on diagnostic capacity, which is key to addressing waiting times and tackling variation in access to better treatment, as we have heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), whose work in this area I commend, and for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist).
Karin Smyth
I am going to press on a little bit, if I may.
I remind the House that we are doing this within the existing legal structures, and that our approach is not to put in place additional duties and layers of detail and specificity in primary legislation. I think we should avoid the temptation to create separate statutory obligations for each condition or patient group, particularly in an age where people are living longer and very often with more than one health condition. Instead, we should commit ourselves to tackling inequalities for everyone, everywhere.
We have again heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), about corridor care. The Government have been consistently clear that corridor care is not an acceptable standard of care and should not be normalised, and it is our intention to reduce and ultimately eradicate it. I think it is worth reminding the House that corridor care does not occur everywhere; some places have made huge steps to avoid it, and we want to share that learning. I particularly commend Barnsley foundation trust, South Warwickshire foundation trust and the Dudley group foundation trust, where there have been zero incidents in the last reporting. We must recognise that corridor care is one of the most visible and distressing symptoms of systemic pressures across the urgent and emergency care pathway, and our focus is on taking action now to tackle those underlying pressures.
We are improving patient flow, strengthening discharge arrangements, investing in urgent and emergency care services, and providing targeted support to the systems and trusts facing the greatest challenges from corridor care, so that improvements can be delivered where they are needed most. To ensure that we can understand where these challenges are, we have already introduced a national definition of corridor care, and strengthened reporting and oversight arrangements.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way and wish her a happy birthday, too. The NHS trust in north-west London was recently found to be one of the most improved in London in terms of reducing waiting lists. Does she agree that all the changes that she is bringing in through the Bill, including those discussed today, will help us to bring down those waiting lists even further and address the issues with corridor care that she has outlined?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her best wishes and commend the work that she and many other Members are doing directly with their trusts to understand the impact of the work that we are doing to bring down those waiting lists and improve access for patients. As I have said, corridor care is a sign of systemic failure in the system and is unacceptable. I think we have all witnessed it in our local trusts, but it is coming down in places, and we want to continue to see it eradicated.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his championing of the families of children suffering from life-threatening illnesses. I know that Members on both sides of the House recognise the profound impact that receiving a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition has on a child and their family. It is vital that all these families feel supported, informed and cared for, and I wholeheartedly recognise that the support that they are offered now is often not proactive or joined up, with the onus, as he said, being on families to navigate the system and seek support themselves.
With that in mind, the Government commissioned a report on the mental health impacts of life-threatening childhood illness on families, named in the memory of Hugh Menai-Davis. I pay tribute to Hugh’s parents for their campaigning and offer them my deepest condolences.
The report process is progressing well, and I can commit to the report being published in this Parliament, with a full Government response issued within three months of publication. For too long, children’s health has not been a priority, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has directed the Department to make maternal and child health central to its work. We know that a child’s health has ramifications for the wellbeing of the whole family, and there must be better solutions to join up support for parents of unwell children.
The new cross-Government mental health strategy will also address how we better support parents and families, and the Government intend to work closely with parents, families and campaigners to identify workable solutions and make available more proactive support.
I turn now to the Opposition amendments, starting with new clause 142, in the name of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
Karin Smyth
I will carry on.
As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows well, provisions are already in place to appropriately control access to puberty-suppressing hormones for children and young people presenting with gender incongruence or dysphoria. Children and young people with gender incongruence deserve evidence-based care. The Cass review recommended a clinical trial to provide high-quality comparative evidence on the potential benefits and risks of the medicines. That is now under way.
I agree with the comments from the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but I have to disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that, uniquely, access to these types of medicines must be subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament. I think that, as a clinician, she understands that.
I would also like to address new clause 143. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows, the EHRC’s updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations commenced on 5 August. It provides guidance on how sex-based distinctions in the Equality Act can be applied, including in the NHS. This new clause is unnecessary. This legislation is the law and the law is clear. The NHS will obviously follow the law. New guidance has been drafted and will be published imminently. For the record, I am due next week to meet the Darlington nurses who she spoke for. I agree that they were brave; they should not have had to go through what they went through.
I want to address new clauses 41 and 42 on funeral regulation in the name of the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who spoke powerfully on behalf of the whole House; I commend the work that she has done. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) has spoken to me in great detail about this issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).
The Government were appalled by the offences committed by Robert Bush and the profound harm caused to bereaved families. Every deceased person must be treated with care, respect and dignity. We are undertaking urgent work to develop comprehensive proposals, including formal regulation of the funeral sector to drive out rogue operators and strengthen protection for bereaved families. As the hon. Member for Gosport said, operators that work well will also want to see this. We will begin sharing proposals shortly, and I am very happy to include hon. Members in the discussions.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister said in July that the sector needed to be regulated and that this continues to be a priority for his Government?
Karin Smyth
Absolutely, and I am committed to working with my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members across the House.
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) to discuss his amendments concerning medicines. I hope that I reassured him—from his speech, I think that I did—that the Government do support well-designed research into innovative treatments using controlled drugs, where this is conducted safely and appropriately. We also understand the complexities involved, including the need to minimise the risk of harm and misuse. That is why we are working across government to consider how to implement the recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to reduce barriers to research with schedule 1 controlled drugs. I committed to write to my hon. Friend to set that out further; I will do.
A number of hon. Members tabled amendments on issues with their local infrastructure. We have already published the capital plan and improved long-term capital planning to improve local infrastructure.
I think that I have addressed most things—
Karin Smyth
I am so sorry; I will to talk to my hon. Friend later. The debate has been wide ranging. If there are things that I have missed, I commit to getting back to hon. Members. I know that my noble Friend Baroness Merron is committed to working co-operatively with all Members as the Bill proceeds through the other House.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me thank all those who have been involved in bringing this Bill to this point, including all those involved in Committee. I thank the parliamentary staff, the departmental staff and the legal staff, and the Members on both sides of the House, who have debated so many different issues during the passage of the Bill. In particular, I pay huge thanks to the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has not only chaperoned this Bill through every stage from beginning to end—with some different Health Secretaries along the way—but has done today’s Report stage on her birthday; I wish her a hugely happy birthday.
I am grateful to everybody for their engagement, including those who, as well as debating the issues covered by the Bill, have taken the opportunity of these debates to raise so many issues that are so important to patient care right across the country, and to the improvements we need to make to patient and family care. I include in those thanks the parents of little Hugh Menai-Davis, who were in the House today.
Members in all parts of the House have been raising issues from special educational needs and disabilities to funeral regulation and health inequalities, and it is important that our NHS and health systems continue to improve.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for giving way, because I know time is short. She is talking about the various issues that have come up while the Bill has been debated. One of them is the most common cause of death in the UK: dementia. An amendment that I tabled with the Alzheimer’s Society suggested that we bring the data on dementia, which is scattered right across the health system at the moment, into a single place to drive progress on early diagnosis and treatment. Does she agree that that is an important priority for the Government?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this vital issue. So many of us will have families and constituents who are affected by dementia. We are committed to introducing a dementia tsar as part of our response to Louise Casey’s commission, and we will be looking at data issues and evidence as part of that.
As this legislation completes its passage through this House, I thank my predecessor Health Secretaries for the work that they have done in bringing down waiting lists, improving treatment and getting more appointments than ever before. There are thousands more doctors, nurses, midwives and mental health workers in place than ever before, and we thank our national health service staff across the country. They also recognised that we inherited a system that was still badly held back by the failed 2012 Lansley reforms, including the huge administrative issue and unaccountable bureaucracy, with lots of duplication, poor communication and no proper accountability. This legislation is about strengthening democratic accountability and the focus on patient care. To be clear, I pay tribute to the work done by many people across NHS England—including in particular the recent work of the current chief executive, Jim Mackey, to substantially improve patient care and to reduce that duplication—but the systems and structures have been holding people back. That is why we have brought this reform forward, part of which will not just end the wasteful duplication, but ensure that our NHS system is better able to deliver.
I will update the House and the NHS shortly on the future operating arrangements. Let me say now that that means returning to some of the arrangements that applied before 2012, when we had strong national NHS leadership, but with much greater partnership and accountability and far less duplication than we have today. I have been frank with both the Department and NHS England that the focus needs to be on patients.
We are making some further reforms in response to the discussions in this House. I have made a commitment that we will bring forward amendments in the House of Lords to establish England’s first statutory maternity commissioner, implementing the Amos review’s recommendation, but also directly reflecting the work and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), the Government’s national maternity adviser. I thank her for the work that she has done. We have also amended the Bill to ensure that local government is represented on ICBs. That was raised by the Select Committee. I am also clear that we need to ensure that patients’ voices are properly embedded in decision making. Members have all debated the importance of the single patient record to improve care.
It is great to be back at this Dispatch Box as a Health Minister, 24 years since I last spoke at the Dispatch Box as a Health Minister. I am surprised by how little has changed in many ways, but one thing that has not changed, but which is so immensely important to all of us, is the dedication of NHS staff and the people who work right across the country to support patients and communities. This Bill is about helping them to ensure they can do their jobs in the most effective way. I commend this Bill to the House.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back, as it were, to the Department. As we debate Third Reading of the Bill, she is the third Secretary of State for this Bill. It was about 40 minutes after First Reading that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) resigned. I wonder which bit he had just spotted. We wish the Secretary of State well, though, and not only because of her East Hampshire heritage. There will be times when we disagree entirely, and there will be times when we find commonality, but at all times it is our job to scrutinise the Government in the interests of the public and on behalf of the dedicated professionals and other staff in these most vital of sectors.
It is also my first opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). He took on that responsibility in the very finest traditions of this House. He had and has respect and admiration across the House, and I know his approach was much appreciated by so many working in and in support of health and social care.
This has been a big Bill, and I thank the Public Bill Committee for all the work they did. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who was the Whip and is now a shadow Minister, and everybody on that Committee. We will not divide on Third Reading, because there are important things in this Bill that we support. However, there is a great deal of concern about a huge IT project with no detail behind it as yet. It should put a shiver down any incoming Minister’s back when they hear that they have been bequeathed a large public sector IT transformation project.
The Government are taking oversight out and putting that inside the body that is meant to oversee things, removing patient voice and, most of all, doing an enormous top-down reorganisation of the NHS. There have already been 10 of those since 1974. If the answer to the NHS’s problems was a top-down reorganisation, perhaps one of the previous ones would have worked. Whatever the outcome, and whatever this legislation ends up being, I know that the other place will be scrutinising it closely. We will scrutinise its implementation and what difference it actually makes in the end for patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Further to my online petition, which to date has received over 9,000 signatures, I rise to present a paper petition against the expansion of the local government boundaries of Leicester city council.
Prior to the summer recess, the Government announced proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire. The plans would have placed the villages of Anstey, Birstall, Cropston, Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Leicester Forest East, Thurcaston, Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley within the Leicester city council area. While I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Government, the 9,000 residents who have signed this petition have made their views crystal clear. They want it to be a permanent pause. They do not support an enlarged Leicester city council area.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council’s boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
[P003235]
Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is to see my good friend, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), in her place replying to this debate. The whole House was delighted to see her promotion in the recent reshuffle. It was long overdue, and I look forward to how she replies to this debate to work out the benchmark for her appearances on future occasions.
The weight of documentation that I hold in my hands will give the House some indication of the weight of the problem that the organisation of retirement property management companies presents to many of our constituents across the country. My remarks are principally motivated by the lamentable behaviour of a company called Cognatum Estates, which runs three facilities in North Dorset: Home Farm in Iwerne Minster, Castle Gardens in Shaftesbury and Walpole Court in Puddletown. I have had constituents from those three facilities come to see me on many occasions, as well as write and email, with a growing list of concerns that seem to go absolutely ignored.
Those constituents should not take it particularly personally, because Cognatum has been presenting problems in other constituencies too. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and I met Cognatum representatives some little while ago to talk through the concerns that our constituents were sharing with us. They met, they listened and then they wrote to us to say, “Thank you very much indeed. We will never meet you again. Everything in the garden is rosy. We don’t recognise the evidence that you have given us.” There is a real problem here, and the Government need to act.
Unfortunately, I think I may be correct in highlighting a point raised by my constituent Jean Wilkinson, a resident of one of the Cognatum properties. She wrote to me as follows:
“It is also important to highlight that a significant number of residents are elderly and in poor health. As a result, many do not feel able to raise concerns or advocate for themselves. This creates a situation where important issues risk being overlooked and where residents feel they do not have a sufficient voice.”
I have had a number of emails from across the country and from other constituents that effectively mirror and echo that point. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you too have had issues in your constituency, albeit with a different company—we were talking about it earlier in the day.
Too many property management companies view their residents as elderly cash cows. They are people who have worked and saved hard, want to be independent in their older years, and do not want a huge amount of fuss and bother—they just want a quiet, peaceful, dignified, sensible, grown-up sort of a life. As one gets older, I am certain that one becomes a little less bullish in challenging and questioning authority. Anything for a quiet life: “If the service or management charges go up and I am not given a particularly clear explanation or cogent argument to support it, well, I’ll just write the cheque and pay, because it is the line of least resistance.” I am absolutely convinced that that is now a deep-set and ingrained way in which a lot of those companies operate.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out a compelling case for how providers of retirement homes and accommodation are letting people down, and the absence of redress that a lot of residents have. Does he agree that this is an area in which we desperately need more regulation and oversight, and that the Government need to take action to that effect?
Simon Hoare
I agree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that matter in a moment, because there are two very specific areas that I think require attention.
Cognatum does not get off scot-free because of one doggedly determined constituent, Peter Wintle, who lives in Home Farm of Iwerne Minster. He has cogently and sensibly asked questions over the years of Cognatum, only to be met with very little in reply. The issues that Peter has raised with me on behalf of those residents, which are echoed by others, is the absence of management transparency—a key and important thing—and accountability of the companies involved, as well as a lack of clear communication that sets out in easily digestible form information that residents require and openness on finance, explaining why service charges go up and why repairs or maintenance are being done in a certain way. There is a lackadaisical and tardy attitude in responding to issues and complaints raised by residents—all things that should not be expected. The complaints system is not worthy of the name. In the case of Cognatum, because of the way it organises itself, there are also unaudited accounts, which make it incredibly hard for anybody to follow the line on the balance sheet.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, without whom no Adjournment debate would be complete.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Vulnerable retirees in Strangford are facing experiences and anxieties that mirror those he has referred to. While we do have the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, it lacks a statutory cap on ground rents and it is not possible to regulate the runaway management and event fees levied by private firms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our elderly population, including elderly constituents in Strangford, deserve uniform financial protections and safety from predatory management practices, regardless of which corner of the United Kingdom they reside in?
Simon Hoare
I agree. That goes back to the point I made a moment ago that too many of these companies see their residents as a soft or easy touch. They think that their residents will just suck it up and simply write the cheque.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and for securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that there is a particularly predatory aspect upon the death of a resident who has occupied one of these properties? I would like to use this moment to pay tribute to Alex Roll, a constituent of mine whose mother’s estate has been crawled all over by predatory management companies that have seen an opportunity to effectively seize the assets of someone who worked tirelessly through their life. This system urgently needs reform—it is desperate for it.
Simon Hoare
I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time. When somebody dies and the property then goes up for sale—sometimes, because of the restrictive covenants, the resale can be a slow and difficult business—not only do these companies receive a fairly significant clawback at the point of sale, but they demand service charges to be paid while the property is vacant or while probate is awaited. They really are trying to milk it from both ends, and I just do not think that stacks up in the court of public opinion as being fair or justifiable. One should be able to say, “This property is vacant. We will not levy the service charge, as that will effectively be included in the clawback that we get at the point of sale,” because there is clearly no resident in that property using those services.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to highlight a case of exactly that. I have a constituent whose property has been on the market since 2022. The landlord chooses who the new owner will be. The adult members of the family, who are struggling to get on to the property ladder, cannot move in because they are not over 55, and the landlord will not allow the property to be rented out, even though it rents its properties out on the same site. They are absolutely banjaxed. There is an exit fee as well. It is catastrophic. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is just opportunistic profiteering at the expense of people who are vulnerable, and actually, when people have died, the families really are catastrophically affected.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady expresses it very well, and I agree with her assessment entirely. It is the age and vulnerability of many—the “anything for the quiet life” factor—that is being exploited to the max.
I want to mention specifically the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although in this campaign he is very much my hon. Friend. We have been working together very closely on issues relating to Cognatum. He has Mytchett Heath in his constituency, and the issues being raised by his residents mirror those being raised by mine, and it is not a pretty picture.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I, too, am very much aware of this issue. In my constituency I have a property called Williamson Court, which is run by McCarthy & Stone, and everything that colleagues are saying sounds very familiar. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any sense of the scale of this issue right across the country, because it strikes me that we represent very different parts of the UK?
Simon Hoare
I think it manifests itself in all quarters of the United Kingdom, but not all companies are culpable. My other campaign is on the regulation of the funeral sector; it is the rotten apples in the barrel that give the whole sector a bad name. It is on them that attention should be focused.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hoare
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because we want to hear from the Minister.
I am told that Cognatum and its subsidiaries claim small companies exemptions, meaning that there are no independent audits and the directors control the financial disclosures. Inconsistent and exceptional accounting items suggest financial irregularities. The company operates on a “going concern” basis, despite significant inter-company debts, and the auditors do not sign the reported financial statements, raising accountability concerns. That suggests, as the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and others have suggested, the need for regulation.
I have two asks of the Minister. The first is to have a thorough assessment of the effectiveness and independence—or rather, the lack thereof—of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. They are populated in the main by current operators. Effectively, colleagues are being asked to mark other colleagues’ homework. I do not think that is sustainable or desirable, and it needs looking at.
A number of my constituents believe that there is a rather lackadaisical approach to following the requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. I know that the Government have been doing some work on that, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
In closing, I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who have supported me in this endeavour. I pay tribute again to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Honiton and Sidmouth for the work that the three of us have been doing with regard to Cognatum. We did say that there would be an Adjournment debate if Cognatum was not prepared to engage and try to pull up its socks and improve the operation and service that they give to their residents, so this is a debate literally of their own making.
This sector has grown up quite quickly; it is still quite novel in this country. People are still finding their way, and I think we are probably only on the first or second generation of residents experiencing the pitfalls of both resale and clawback issues and the lack of accountability that exists in the management and maintenance of many of these places where people live.
These people have chosen to live there. They have invested a significant sum of their money so that they can live a retired life in dignity.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is somewhat analogous to what we see with park homes, for which there is a requirement for a fit and proper person test, with regulation from the local authority. Might that suit the situation he outlines?
Simon Hoare
That is a good suggestion. Anything has to be better than the status quo, which is neither defensible nor indeed desirable.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman has been frightfully patient. I will give way to him.
Warinder Juss
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I have a 92-year-old constituent, Freda Quinton, who has been unable to live in her retirement property since April because persistent and unresolved leaks have not been repaired, despite repeated assurances that they would be. She therefore cannot live independently. She now has health concerns, emotional distress and financial pressures. Does the hon. Member agree that that is no way to treat older residents and that a problem exists not only with the management company that he has referred to, but with others?
Simon Hoare
I agree. There is a common theme coming through, which is the age, the vulnerability, the “anything for the quiet life,” the “We’re not empowered to ask questions,” and maybe not being digitally alert. Some bigwig from a company comes along and attends a meeting. In the case of Cognatum, they tell us, “Don’t worry, Mr Hoare, Dr Pinkerton and Mr Foord, because we have a tenant representative on the board.” How is that tenant representative chosen? They are chosen by the board of Cognatum—they are not elected by fellow residents at all—so a poacher chooses potentially another poacher to mark their own homework.
There is this vulnerability: this “anything for a quiet life”; this “are we empowered to ask questions?” Indeed, the tipping point for me was when one of my constituents, who was asking perfectly legitimate questions in a perfectly civil way, found on his doormat a letter from Cognatum’s solicitors saying, “We think you are being vexatious and we are considering your lease arrangements.” Effectively, they were saying, “Ask any more questions, sunshine, and you’re out on your ear.” That gentleman is over 80. I do not think that is the right and proper way to treat anybody.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised a distressing case, obviously causing concern to him, to his constituents and to their friends and family. I hope that the comments and observations made in the debate have convinced the Minister that the status quo cannot continue. While we all call for a lighter regulatory approach and so on, this is a particular area of operation that has grown swiftly and autonomously, and is now crying out for reform. Reform of the association and rigorous enforcement of the section of the Act that I quoted would be a good starting point.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind remarks on my appointment? I have fond memories of shadowing him when I was in opposition. I know that he has a breadth of knowledge across housing, communities and local government, and that this issue is close to his heart. I also thank the other Members for their contributions.
I want to start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that although this area sits with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, I have been looking at it and will feed back to him on the key issues. The contributions have highlighted a really important area: the many challenges that leaseholders across the country, and especially elderly leaseholders, are facing with management companies, with flagrant disregard for people who have worked so hard to secure their property and live independently.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the key areas where management companies continue to let people down, including issues with transparency, accountability, communication, responding to issues, raising complaints and unaudited accounts. Those are basic things that management companies should be doing. I think about elderly leaseholders and how, for many of them, if they do not have a network of family support helping them to navigate this, it can feel predatory, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) highlighted. When someone receives those letters with demands, it can be quite scary.
We recognise the hugely important role that the older people’s housing sector plays—I do think there is a role for it—in ensuring people have independence in later life. We want to be able to make sure of that. We are keeping people out of hospital, and that can only happen if they have a safe and secure home of their own to go back to. The Government are committed to enhancing provisions and choice across the residential market, including for older people, and that means both increasing the supply of homes to older people and, most importantly, improving their experience in their own homes.
Many residents of retirement homes have made a significant financial and, in some cases, personal contribution to their homes, and they should have the confidence that when they raise valid concerns, those should be addressed promptly and in a timely manner. When they challenge bad practice, they should get a response and they should not have to come to their Members of Parliament. Yet we are seeing so many people resorting to raising issues and parliamentarians having to name and shame management companies until any action is taken. That should not be the way that things are happening.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I am sure she will remember that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recently scrutinised the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We found it wanting; it did not go far or fast enough. The solution to the problems outlined in this debate is to properly regulate property managing agents and especially those that run retirement homes for the vulnerable elderly. Does the Minister agree that the Bill needs to come back urgently with that regulation?
Florence Eshalomi
I hope the Select Committee is going very well. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that we championed on the Committee to the point that, if he recalls, in many senses I harassed the former Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing, saying “When will we see the Bill? The Bill has to come before the House. It is an issue that comes into many parliamentarians’ inboxes, it is a cross-party issue and we want to see the Government act on that and make good on that commitment.”
I want to highlight that there are many good managing agents out there. This is not about saying that the issue of managing agents is all bad. There are good ones who are responsible, who respond on time and who are responsible for providing safe and secure homes for their residents. However, we know that far too often, the poor and unscrupulous managing agents let the sector down.
Managing agents play an important role in the maintenance of a wide range of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates. Their importance will only increase as we transition towards a commonhold future, so it is essential that we take action to drive up the standards within the sector. As the hon. Member for North Dorset and other hon. Members will know, the previous Government committed to regulating managing agents in 2018 and asked a working group chaired by Lord Best to advise them on how to do that. Yet, they failed to respond to the group’s final report, which was published in July 2019. We have moved on from that. It is about how we now take those recommendations and bring an outcome for so many people, and the Government are ready to take forward a number of those recommendations.
The retirement sector has some specific arrangements in place. Many retirement housing managing agents already operate under the Association of Retirement Housing Managers’ code of practice, which sets the standards on transparency and complaints handling, but as we have heard this evening that does not seem to be working and it is about how we ensure that we are enforcing some of those key areas. Elsewhere in the sector, similar consumer protection standards are promoted through the Associated Retirement Community Operators’ consumer code for its members. I stress again: we recognise the concerns that remain in parts of the sector and are considering how we can protect consumers and residents to strengthen that and have a consistent approach.
In the recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or to replace a managing agent, as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. The Government will consult on the introduction of qualifications for estate and letting agents next year. We have also made it clear that we plan to introduce a code of practice this year setting out the minimum standards expected of all residential property agents. This includes estate, letting and managing agents. The Government are considering Lord Best’s report in full, and we will set out our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course, but this has to come at a timely pace.
Tom Gordon
I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that this was in some sense analogous to the issues that park home residents face. While there is a fit and proper person test in that instance, it is often lacking and not the tightening regulation that people had hoped for. What measures will the Minister bring forward, having learned from those experiences, to ensure that we get proper regulation that has teeth and that will work?
Florence Eshalomi
Nearly right! My apologies. That is an issue that I will definitely be forwarding. I have taken a note of it and I will forward it to the Housing Minister so that the hon. Gentleman can get a proper response.
Tessa Munt
When the Minister says managing agents, does she mean management companies, a bit like FirstPort, which provide a lamentable service? One of the retirement buildings in my patch has just been offered the repainting of its windows for £240,000. I think that works out at over £5,000 per flat. This is just for the birds. It is absolutely bonkers. I want to be sure that they will be captured within the legislation that she is proposing.
Florence Eshalomi
I can reassure the hon. Lady that FirstPort continues to come up regularly. I had the pleasure, in my former role as Chair of the Select Committee, of scrutinising and questioning the managing director and chief exec of FirstPort, and the hon. Lady will be aware that the Housing Minister has also held important meetings with FirstPort. There are other managing agents that we should not let off the hook, but FirstPort has a large share of properties across the country.
The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the consultation on section 20, and this is a key issue that the Government have been looking at. The Government consulted on that last year, and my understanding is that they will be setting out the response in due course. Again, this is something that I will push the Housing Minister on, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to ensure we come back to this in a timely manner.
I also want to highlight the experiences that other hon. Members have raised on behalf of their constituents. It is important that we continue to share these really valid examples to show why we need to move at pace in regulating this important area. We recognise that the pre-legislative scrutiny report into the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill recommended that a number of measures should be extended to retirement providers, and we will consider that as part of our work. I am happy to say that it was a good Member of Parliament who led on that pre-legislative scrutiny.
I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have come to the House this evening to debate this important issue. I thank them for sharing their insights and, most importantly, sharing the lived examples and concerns that many residents continue to face. We continue to see people who are worried, when another bill or letter comes through the door, about what will be demanded from them. We see them worry that, when they do not respond to those letters, they could be issued with court and threatening letters. It is really important that we address this emotional, physical and mental impact; it is not just about the financial impact it is having on vulnerable residents. I want to thank all Members for engaging with this, and I look forward to working with them. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will also be engaging further with Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Acas Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. The measure was laid in draft before this House on 6 July 2026. This Government are resetting and modernising our industrial relations framework. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. The Government want to ensure that trade union workplace representatives can take sufficient reasonable paid time off and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties.
The Acas code of practice, issued under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides practical guidance on reasonable paid time off and access to accommodation and other facilities that employees who are trade union representatives are entitled to take to fulfil their trade union duties. The code has been updated following the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which strengthened and introduced rights for employees who are trade union representatives.
There are three key changes made by the Employment Rights Act to the existing statutory framework. First, it strengthens the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties. The legislation now makes it clear that, where a request is made, it should generally be treated as reasonable, and it is for the employer to demonstrate otherwise if challenged in a tribunal. Secondly, there is a statutory provision that representatives should be provided with reasonable access to facilities, such as meeting spaces, communication tools and appropriate workplace resources, to enable them to carry out their duties or undergo relevant training. Thirdly, the Act introduces a new right for trade union equality representatives to reasonable paid time off for specified equality-related purposes.
Those changes are due to take effect on 30 October. The code has been updated to reflect the changes and support effective and smooth implementation when these new rights come into force in October. It provides clear, accessible guidance to employers, trade unions and representatives on how the statutory framework should operate in practice.
The code sets out in practical terms how these rights should be applied, covering matters such as the kinds of activities that fall under the statutory duties and purposes, factors that might make a request reasonable or not, how unions and employers should communicate about arrangements for time off, and the agreement of arrangements between employers and unions. Importantly, the code supports constructive engagement between employers and unions. The intention is not to prescribe rigid rules but to encourage that co-operation and clarity, so that arrangements work for employers, businesses and trade unions.
The code provides clear guidance that will give employers confidence in how to approach requests, and will help representatives to understand how to exercise their rights appropriately. In that sense, the laying of this code is a necessary step to ensure that the changes made by the 2025 Act operate as intended from day one. I therefore support this code of practice and commend it to the House.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
On the surface, this revision introduces the legal right to reasonable paid time off for union equality representatives, ensures that representatives can hold multiple positions—thus increasing the provisions under which they qualify for more time off—puts a greater onus on employers in tribunals, and legally requires employers to provide reasonable means to support representatives in carrying out their jobs. Yet it does far more than that: it burdens businesses with yet more regulatory red tape, further decreases employment opportunities and compounds the hardship that employers already face. Higher employment costs through increased administrative expenditure, unaffordable additional paid leave and legal tribunal expenses are a fast track to job scarcity.
A recent survey of more than 1,000 business owners found that one in five lacked confidence in the new trade union rules. Furthermore, 69% of employers believed that trade unions still have the power to cause serious problems for the UK economy, while 62% believed that the UK is entering a new, more unstable period of employment relations. Yet rather than heed those warnings and work with businesses to create a viable solution, the Government persist with such policies, despite being aware of the risks.
This is a tough time for employers and workers. Employers are seeing rising costs all around them, and workers are watching their budgets get stretched thinner as the cost of living continues to mount. A solution is needed, but this approach will only create new challenges.
The increased presence of trade unions is anticipated to escalate the number of strikes taking place across the economy. Data from the European company survey shows that strike incidence is directly higher in establishments where trade union density is greater. Furthermore, trade union membership in the public sector sits at 48.5%, compared with only 12.1% in the private sector. Research shows that since 2000 the number of days lost to strikes per worker has been 30 times higher in the public sector than in the private sector, despite public sector earnings rising faster.
In a scenario of escalating industrial action, who is likely to be profoundly impacted? A persistent casualty demographic is the general public. It is unacceptable that the Government are looking to create a set of circumstances conducive to increased strikes, which burden the British public—and at the taxpayer’s expense, no less. That is why we will vote against this draft code. Rather than expand the scope of paid time off for union representatives, the Government should scrap this legal burden on employers and redirect important taxpayer funds to frontline priorities such as the NHS and national infrastructure.
Businesses have already suffered harmful setbacks under this Government: increases to national insurance contributions, mounting energy bills, business rate modifications and the Employment Rights Act, which 86% of industry leaders warned would harm UK growth. The Government claim to be pro-worker yet continue to enact policies that shrink workforces and empty the public’s pockets.
I am both pro-worker and pro-business, and so is my party. We are steadfast in our belief that we must support businesses and entrepreneurs, who not only prop up our economy but take risks needed to provide employment. I also firmly believe that the Government must support workers by ensuring that they can keep as much of their own money as possible. That is how to truly bolster UK business and meaningfully assist the hard-working taxpayer simultaneously.
Can the Minister outline the Government’s plan to ensure that their policies on trade unions do not lead to further job losses? If not, will they accept our suggestions?
Kate Dearden
I welcome the shadow Minister to his role and to the Committee. I look forward to working with him and debating many issues—this one in particular. He spoke a lot about industrial action. I always find it quite rich when the Opposition talk about strike days, because on their watch they did absolutely nothing to further good industrial relations in this country. That is a real shame, because it is a detriment not only to those employers but to trade unions, our society and our economy as a whole. That is why this Government are absolutely acting responsibly.
I will come to the issue that we are debating today, but let me first say that we recognise the need to make sure that our wider industrial relations framework is functioning so that we can resolve disputes in the workplace early. That is good for businesses, employers and trade unions, so enforcement and ensuring we have negotiation skills across the workplace are really important.
What the Government are doing to reset industrial relations is responsible. We are modernising our wider framework, alongside passing lots of legislation, including the instrument that we are discussing today, and helping to usher in a more co-operative and constructive approach among employers, workers and their unions. I think that is a really good thing.
Bradley Thomas
Does the Minister accept that in settling trade disputes, the Government should emphasise increases in productivity, not just blanket above-inflation pay rises?
Kate Dearden
I will not be drawn on the ins and outs of every single dispute that is happening in the industrial relations landscape. I will bring us back to what a responsible Government are doing: fostering good industrial relations, which is absolutely the right thing to do. Unfortunately, perhaps the shadow Minister and I just disagree on that point.
Let me bring us back to the draft Acas code of practice. The statutory instrument will ensure that employers have the guidance they need based on what was passed in the Employment Rights Act. It is a necessary step so that employers have the guidance to facilitate the legislation and understand their duties. It is really important to provide that guidance and clarity.
We have already touched on the ability to resolve grievances early, and it is really good and positive for reps to have more ability to spend time on doing that in the workplace. In addition, they can improve communication, support workplace training and prevent disputes. That is great workplace value, and that is what we want to foster going forward.
The measure we are debating is necessary and the right step to take. As I said in my introductory speech, we want to make sure that the code plays a key role in ensuring that the new rights introduced in the Act passed last year can operate effectively in practice from the point at which they come into force next month. I hope the code of practice will be approved. It is a real shame that the Opposition cannot support us today.
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
Safety of the Jewish Community
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the safety of the Jewish community.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for letting me hold this debate.
I am honoured to represent one of the most diverse, inclusive and welcoming communities in the world. One hundred and eighty languages are spoken in our schools, and both Haringey and Barnet councils, together with community partners, have been instrumental in ensuring that our community is a place where discrimination and hatred are rejected and diversity is celebrated. I am proud of the excellent Haringey and Barnet multi-faith forums. The Metropolitan police independent advisory group in Barnet and Haringey also does great work. Members of those different groups have joined us today in the Public Gallery.
My job is to work with the community to promote Hornsey and Friern Barnet as a beacon of diversity and integration that shines a light on what can be achieved when the whole community comes together. We have a long and rich history of challenging hate. In 1977, the battle of Wood Green at Ducketts Common saw a rainbow coalition led by Jewish, Irish and black communities unite to drive out the far-right National Front. Former councillor Sheila Peacock, who is now in her 90s, remembers those days well.
In recent years, Hornsey and Friern Barnet has become a safe haven for those fleeing persecution in Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and other conflict zones around the world. Later today, I will host a roundtable with HIAS+JCORE, which has its roots in the Kindertransport movement, to discuss support for newly arrived communities. We have a long and rich history of challenging hatred, and that means we stand against antisemitism.
It has been a frightening and dark six months. On 2 October last year, two Jewish people were killed and three left in a serious condition after a car-ramming and stabbing attack outside the Heaton synagogue in Manchester. In March this year, four ambulances belonging to the Hatzola ambulance service were set on fire in the car park of a synagogue in Golders Green. Hatzola provides a service for all Londoners, responding to thousands of emergencies every year, from minor injuries to life-threatening conditions. It works collaboratively with emergency services such as the London ambulance service, the London fire brigade, the helicopter emergency medical service and the Metropolitan police to co-ordinate and provide professional care.
On 15 April, we saw an attack on the Finchley Reform synagogue. Three days later, the Kenton United synagogue was targeted. On 27 April, an arson attack was carried out at a memorial wall in Golders Green. Later that month, two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green. We know how quickly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) acted; the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, also rushed to the scene to reassure the community.
The Community Safety Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2025, the second highest total ever reported to the CST in a single year. This year, we had the second highest total ever reported to the CST in the first six months of any year. I applied for this debate because the House needs to have a full and frank debate. We need to reassure not only our constituents but ourselves that we are doing all that we possibly can to stamp out the scourge of antisemitism.
I will cover three issues briefly; I am aware that other Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I want to hear from those in all parts of the UK about what their communities are doing to tackle antisemitism. On policing and community cohesion, I welcome the recent Government announcement on investment to protect Jewish communities: more than £250 million across the next three years, including a further £86 million to the Metropolitan police, which will fund about 300 additional officers in London to increase police presence. That is particularly important: as London MPs we understand that any event in central London that needs to be policed means that we lose our local police force.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My local police force in Elmbridge works very closely with my two synagogues, the North West Surrey synagogue and the Kingston Liberal synagogue, to make them feel supported. They, in turn, cite the work of the Community Security Trust. I have been to its impressive headquarters, where I could see the necessity of what it does. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a commitment to fund the trust at its current level, or with more if necessary?
Catherine West
From the number of people who have written to me since this debate was granted, I am very aware that resourcing is crucial. There are more than 500 additional officers across England and Wales, boosting security around schools, synagogues and community centres. It is deeply upsetting, as their MP, to hear mothers ask, “Why does my daughter say, ‘Mummy, why there are so many police outside my school?’?”
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I agree with the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), although members of the Jewish community say to me that they do not want to build ever-higher walls. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I had a harrowing meeting with children and young people who attend Richmond synagogue in my borough. They told us about their terrible experiences of bullying, both physical and verbal, at school and university. They are all having to hide their faith. Does the hon. Member agree that nobody should have to hide their faith? Sir David Bell, who is doing a review for the Government on antisemitism in schools, says that headteachers tell him that, for Jewish faith schools, security comes ahead of education. That cannot be right, can it?
Catherine West
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Although we have not yet heard back from the Bell inquiry, I will touch on it in my third and final point and will pick up the hon. Lady’s points then.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s speech, particularly her reference to what happened at Kenton synagogue, which partly serves the people of Harrow. She referred to many of the physical manifestations of antisemitism. May I draw her attention to online antisemitism? We increasingly expect Ofcom to police the very worst of social media. Is it not time that we had some clear measures of success by which we can hold the Online Safety Act 2023 and Ofcom to account, so that if we still see no reduction in antisemitism online we can consider what further steps are necessary to crack down on that source of antisemitism?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In my second point I will talk about the online world, which is indeed a frightening place for many of us.
Policing and community cohesion are at the heart of ensuring that everyone in the country feels safe. The late John Hume, a Nobel peace prize laureate and former Member of this House, said that our differences make us special and
“should never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer to difference is to respect it. Therein lies the most fundamental principle of peace—respect for diversity.”
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local councils up and down the country do excellent work with programmes on tackling division and building bridges between communities, but I think that in some communities we are better at that than in others. There are some places where that day-to-day confidence-building in the communities we serve is absent.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Earlier this year, I met the Suffolk Liberal Jewish Community. Who thought that there would be such an organisation thriving in the genteel countryside of Suffolk? On the point about antisemitism across the country, will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the small organisations that go out of their way to combat antisemitism and support Jewish communities across the UK?
Catherine West
I will indeed, and I wish there were more of them, because that is at the heart of education. It is all very well having teachers teaching, but what we need is a response that it is embedded in communities. I thank the hon. Member for taking an interest in the Suffolk organisation.
Support with resources for local government includes more than £2 million for more than 200 grassroots organisations, through the Common Ground award, bringing people from different backgrounds together to build trust and find common ground. We hear a lot in this House about Pride in Place, the £5.8 billion funding promoting community leadership, making local politics count. That does not just mean local politicians; it means us in this House going to events, promoting community cohesion, standing up when something is wrong and promoting the right way of doing things.
The Mayor of London has also been proactive, investing £17 million in initiatives to tackle hate crime. Since the shared endeavour fund started in 2020, it has supported 138 projects across the capital and has worked with more than 220,000 participants, including projects focused specifically on countering antisemitism. Here I will mention the work of schools in Barnet. They are mainstream schools, but they come together to listen to the stories of headteachers in Jewish schools in order that we can share experiences and cross-pollinate ideas so that all children, across any local authority area, hear about best practice in tackling antisemitism and hatred.
Research from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate shows a repeated pattern whereby real-world attacks on Jewish communities are followed by targeted abuse, calls for further violence and antisemitic conspiracy theories online. I welcome the inclusion in the Online Safety Act of measures to ensure that technology companies remove illegal content such as antisemitic material, but we need to ensure that it is effective. CCDH research into 10 leading AI chatbots found that eight in 10 chatbots would assist users to plan violent attacks, including on places of worship such as synagogues, and nine in 10 failed to reliably discourage them. That is shocking.
Following the Manchester synagogue attack, the CCDH identified 171 hateful or violent online replies targeting 13 prominent British Jewish accounts. All remained live when checked. The 100 most viewed posts falsely alleging that Israel or Jewish people orchestrated the attack received 568,708 views; none displayed a dissenting community note. Following the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green, the CCDH identified 130 hateful online replies directed at 10 prominent British Jewish individuals and organisations; all remained live when checked. The 100 most viewed false flag conspiracy posts received 252,954 views, again without a single dissenting community note.
How do people know what the truth is when they are reading online? CCDH research found that 11 Instagram accounts posting antisemitic and racist material accumulated 1.5 billion views while directing users to shops selling hateful merchandise. All 11 were also promoted through Instagram’s related accounts feature. Are we sure that the existing legal framework is enough to stamp out online antisemitism?
Education on the dangers of extremism is so important, but good education and the outcomes of good education are so difficult to achieve. I welcome the Government’s £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned, Sir David Bell’s review will look into the support available to schools and colleges; how well they use their policies to make decisions and handle hate-filled incidents; how they are accountable if they fail to handle an incident well; what they can do to prevent antisemitism, including identifying and tackling issues early; and the role and influence of campaigning organisations external to schools and colleges and how they influence school and college decision making. I look forward to reading the review, but most importantly to implementation of the practical actions to combat antisemitism that stem from the review. Early intervention is key.
To sum up, my requests of the Minister are simple. Every Member of this House and communities and families up and down the country need to be reassured that the Government are leaving no stone unturned to ensure that Jewish communities are safe, that we are doing everything we can to stamp out online hate and that we are tackling antisemitism at its roots through work in schools.
I will leave the House with the positive image of the retired Jewish MP whose daughter from the local synagogue planted an olive tree with our esteemed stand-in deputy lieutenant, Bibi Khan, who leads at the Wightman Road mosque. That was a symbol of our communities together. We dig the garden, we plant the tree, the roots take shape and we watch it grow tall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing the debate and highlighting this issue.
I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very core of our shared humanity, freedom of religion and democratic values: the safety and security of our Jewish community. As the Member for Strangford, I have never hidden where I stand. I am an unapologetic friend of Israel. Although I may not agree with every move of the Israeli Government at all times, I will always stand up in this House against those who seek to bully or delegitimise the Jewish state. One does not need to share my geopolitical views to recognise that what is happening to Jewish people on our streets is an absolute disgrace. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet has underlined that, and I congratulate her on setting the scene incredibly well.
The stats paint an horrific picture. The Community Security Trust recorded nearly 2,000 antisemitic incidents across the United Kingdom in the first six months of 2026 alone, making it the second highest first half of a year for such incidents ever recorded. We are seeing record levels of online hate, alongside physical assaults, threats and the desecration of Jewish property. This is not a temporary surge; it is becoming a terrifying new normal, and that has to be stopped. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response and to hearing what the Government will do to address the issue.
We see the spillover of such poison in Northern Ireland, where global political tensions are being used to justify systematic exclusion. Just a few days ago, in Londonderry, four young Israeli triathletes were forced out of the Europe triathlon cup. The local hosting group, the North West Triathlon Club, openly declared that it could not support the participation of the Israeli athletes, arguing that their presence would “normalise” Israel on the international sporting stage.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
That incident happened in my city at the weekend. Jewish athletes from Israel were forced to withdraw from the triathlon as a result of the hateful bile of these hard-left bigots. They complain about the far right, but we have to be consistent in any criticism and calling out of violent rhetoric, whether on the right or the left. Such antisemitic terrorism has to be called out and hopefully prevented in the future.
Jim Shannon
I saw my hon. Friend on the TV and heard him on the radio over the weekend, speaking out on this issue. There is something wrong with the North West Triathlon Club in declaring that it could not support the participation of the Israeli athletes. Because the local organisers refused to back the NWTC, and with protests looming, the Israeli Triathlon Association was backed into a corner and forced to ask World Triathlon to remove the athletes for their own physical safety. It is an absolute disgrace that an organisation should do that in Londonderry of all places, or anywhere in this United Kingdom.
The ITA is now actively considering legal action over what it rightly describes as discriminatory treatment. When a so-called sporting body allows local political pressure to dictate who can stand on the starting line, the very purpose and integrity of international sport is destroyed. It mirrors the hostility we saw in Belfast city centre, where an Israeli television news crew was physically assaulted. Why? Because they were Israelis—because they were Jewish. A cameraman was injured simply because of his nationality. The extreme terrorism, attacks and potential attacks on Israelis in Northern Ireland worries me greatly.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Labour party went through a terrible time with our own antisemitism crisis, the hon. Gentleman was a staunch friend of the Jewish members of my party, and I know that many of them remember him fondly for that. He is highlighting most starkly that this is not about Jewish people living less Jewish lives; it is about Jewish people living less public lives because of the constant fear of what questions they will be asked about geopolitical issues far outside their own sphere of influence or interest. We therefore have a less rich society, because those who can make contributions do not participate. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that we need religious freedom and a diverse culture, and that if people retreat from public spaces, they are left vacant for those with nefarious intent.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman describes the issue very well. People of Jewish faith and those of Israeli nationality are unable to lead their normal lives, as he says.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the DUP leader, who hit the nail on the head when he said that
“strong opinions on Middle Eastern conflicts can never justify hatred, intimidation, or violence against Israeli or Jewish people.”
Having witnessed where identity-based hatred leads in my country, we must reject it completely. My right hon. Friend was right to call out the offensive delays in the removal of hostile slogans such as the graffiti targeting staff at the Royal Victoria hospital.
We have heard those three examples of hatred against Israeli and Jewish people in their work, in their play and in their normal lives. The Belfast Jewish Community is a valued neighbour. As the deputy chair of the Belfast Jewish Community recently warned, these incidents risk branding our region with a reputation for unchecked hostility, so we must uphold the Jewish community’s freedom from persecution and guarantee their safety.
I urge the Minister to ensure robust support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the authorities to protect places of worship, clear our streets of intimidation, ensure that international sport remains open to all without political vetting and keep our communities safe. The Government must acknowledge the problem and seek a solution. Will the Minister liaise with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland and the PSNI—the police force dedicated to the safety of all the people in Northern Ireland—about how Jewish people are under the cosh? It is time that the Government here, the Government back home and the PSNI stepped up and ensured that Israelis and Jewish people have the freedom to live a normal life—the very thing that we want them to have.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this important debate.
I do not speak today as a member of the Jewish community, or as somebody who can fully understand the experience that many British Jews live with every day, but I have seen a small snapshot of it, from my time at the University of Leeds and throughout my continuing engagement with the Jewish community ever since. At university, I saw some of the challenges faced by Jewish students on campus. More recently, I spoke at the Leeds Leads Against Antisemitism demonstration, where I heard directly from members of the community about the challenges that they are now enduring. It has been a particular issue in recent years, but it is a long-standing problem, as many Members know. I will return to the experience of Jewish students later, because what is happening on our campuses tells us something important about the wider problems we face.
The Jewish community in Britain is facing a profound crisis of safety and security. It cannot be said often enough that the first duty of any Government should always be the safety and security of their citizens—we hear it often enough in the Chamber, but it needs to be said again—and that means that the responsibility for protecting the Jewish community cannot rest with the community itself. Nor should Jewish organisations be expected to shoulder the burden alone. The CST is amazing and should of course be well funded, but it cannot fall on the CST to look out for the community every single time. It is the responsibility of us all, and of the Government.
Mr Gregory Campbell
A few years ago, we had an appalling incident when a reporter of Jewish extraction, from Israel, was in licensed premises in Northern Ireland. He was coolly and calmly asking punters, some of whom were not under the excessive influence of alcohol, what problem they had with Jewish people, and one punter said, live on television: “The only problem with Hitler was that he didn’t kill enough Jews.” I raised with the Public Prosecution Service why that person was not subject to prosecution; I could not get a legitimate answer about a comment made live on television to a Jewish reporter.
Mark Sewards
Goodness me! I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a disgraceful turn of events when people feel confident enough to say something like that on camera, especially if they are not even intoxicated and inebriated, not that that would justify any comments of that nature. That is sickening and it goes to the heart of what we are trying to get to. Because of the way antisemitism has been allowed to flourish, a lot of people now confidently say such things even on camera. It is disgraceful.
We need to think about what it means to belong to a society in which we are repeatedly forced to ask whether it is safe to live openly as a Jewish person. The threat is the threat itself; that is the problem, as is the effect it is having on Jewish people who have to live in anticipation of it. Over the past year, Jewish communities have seen attacks on communal organisations and threats against places of worship and institutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet set out, alongside appalling levels of antisemitic incidents.
The significance of that cannot be measured simply by counting the incidents, because it is changing the everyday, ordinary lives of Jewish people in this country. Familiar places and ordinary routines become questions of security. Precautions that might once have seemed extreme, maybe even paranoid, have instead become reasonable considerations that Jewish people have to make as part of their ordinary daily lives. That is why security outside synagogues, schools and community institutions sadly remains all too essential; why Jewish societies at universities do not always publicise where their events will take place; and why celebrating Jewish life in public can require precautions that few other communities in this country ever have to consider.
Munira Wilson
In my previous intervention, I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I had met children, young people and their parents at Richmond synagogue to talk about their experience in schools, colleges and universities. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about people hiding their identity and partly withdrawing from public life, one of the students from —I will name the university, because I went there—the University of Cambridge said that antisemitism was rife in some colleges and was not dealt with. They hid where the Jewish society would meet. One student said she had done Hebrew teaching as part of her extracurricular activities, but is keeping that off her CV because she is worried she will be discriminated against. Folk in that room said to us, “We’re tired of advocating for ourselves; we need others to advocate for us.” It is incumbent on us all to come together and say that enough is enough.
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. I will come on to universities in the final part of my speech. The experience of students at the University of Leeds reflects what the hon. Lady said.
Security is incredibly important, but our ambition cannot simply be to protect the Jewish people from immediate physical danger. It must also mean being able to live openly and confidently in British society, with a sense of belonging, while being Jewish. That challenge is made even more serious by the actions of hostile states. I welcome the Government’s action on designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the newly reformed National Security Act 2023. Designation must be backed up by vigilance and effective enforcement.
Ministers have acknowledged in previous statements that Jewish people, alongside dissidents and journalists, are among those most targeted by the Iranian state and the IRGC in particular. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what further steps are being taken to ensure that hostile states and their proxies cannot intimidate or target British Jewish communal institutions or other organisations in Britain. This is not just some distant foreign policy concern; as we know, we have to live with it every day. Iran has demonstrated its willingness to project threats well beyond its own borders. It also views Jewish communities through the prism of the conflict with Israel, which inevitably creates further concerns for Jewish people here in Britain.
Before I come to my point about universities, we have to confront the antisemitism that presents itself as anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Israeli Government is, of course, not inherently antisemitic—of course it is not—but denying Jewish people alone the right to national self-determination, or treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of Israel, is obviously antisemitic. It is anti-Zionist antisemitism and it needs to be called out.
Gareth Snell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a wonderful speech. He will know, because he is from Leeds, that one of the people spending most of their time propagating that sort of virulent antisemitism is the deputy leader of the Green party in Leeds, who once posted a list of British people—some Jewish—saying “bought and sold by Israel”, purely because of their politics.
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. That is exactly the sort of behaviour that we have to call out, and it is exactly the sort of behaviour that the Green party is going to have to confront at some point if the party does not want to become infested with the kinds of people we had to deal with in the Labour party between 2015 and 2020.
It is important to recognise that the threats facing Jewish people do not exist in neat and separate categories. As we know, online abuse is spilling into the real world. Extremist rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which intimidation becomes normalised, and hostile states will seek to exploit those divisions.
The Government’s Protecting What Matters strategy, which was announced back in March, contains important commitments on tackling antisemitism and extremism much more broadly, and obviously I welcome that direction of travel. We now have a new Government and new Ministers in place; it is a test of delivery. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide greater clarity on the timetable for implementing the Protecting What Matters strategy, as there are lots of measures within it, and say how success will be measured.
Finally, let me return to the issue I mentioned at the beginning of my speech: antisemitism on university campuses. That is where I first started to become interested in the issue of Israel and Palestine, and the Jewish community in this country.
Jim Shannon
I met a Jewish student from Queen’s University Belfast at a synagogue a year and a half ago. She informed me that Jewish students there are under particular pressure. When it comes to universities across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is nowhere that the enemies of Jewish people are not present. Jewish students at Queen’s University Belfast have had to retreat into a small shell just to get away from the hatred and bile of those who hate them. That is an example of universities going the wrong way.
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. Unfortunately, I am about to share some statistics that underline that problem even further.
I secured a debate on antisemitism on university campuses in this Chamber back in June, and I shared findings from the Union of Jewish Students’ “Time for Change” report, which underlines the seriousness of the issue. One in five students—20%—would be reluctant to, or would never, share a house with a Jewish student. One in four students—this is from all students—did not care very much, or at all, if Jewish people were forced to hide their identity. The figures shocked me then and still shock me now. What is happening on our campuses is sickening.
This is about so much more than individual incidents. It tells us something about the environment in which Jewish people are having to live their lives in all spheres, including university campuses. Jewish identity should not be something that any student has to explain or justify, and neither should Jewish students be treated as representatives of the Israeli Government simply because they are Jewish. The UJS has put forward practical recommendations in its report, which I urge the Government to consider seriously: they must be implemented. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the Government might implement those measures, or how they are working across Departments and with universities, the police and Jewish community organisations to ensure a genuinely co-ordinated approach to ensuring that Jewish students are safe on campus.
Whether it is a Jewish student on a university campus, a family at a synagogue or a Jewish organisation facing threats from abroad, the principle is the same: British Jews should not have to organise their lives around antisemitism. The British Jewish community is an integral part of our society and national story. They belong here—they always have and always will—and we will always speak up for them.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that our Jewish communities are under threat from a persistent and toxic hatred that has the worst possible outcome. Innocent people have been murdered simply because of who they are and the faith they practise. That cannot continue. Everything possible must be done to ensure that our Jewish communities are no longer threatened. Prejudice and hatred must be tackled at their root, and the casual othering of minority groups such as the Jewish community must be called out and stopped.
When institutions fail to act against hatred, prejudice simply becomes policy. History shows us the dark path that follows if that is allowed to happen. Two weeks ago, I was honoured to join the congregation at Heaton Park synagogue for a memorial service commemorating the victims of the terror attack that occurred on Yom Kippur last year. It was heartbreaking to hear the stepdaughter of Melvin Cravitz talk about her experiences of that day and the days and nights that followed. She described with such warmth the man Melvin was and the profound impact that he had on her life and that of her mother. She told us how the community stood together after Melvin’s murder and supported her family through their darkest hours, but she also talked about how she became the target for malicious and vile trolls who would send her antisemitic abuse about the death of her stepdad. Those trolls would claim that Jewish people were to blame for the murders of Adrian Daulby and her stepfather. That is a vile and disturbing distortion. Its purpose is not only to dismiss the horrendous experiences of a grieving daughter, but to paint the Jewish community as somehow deserving of the fate they receive.
Sadly, that sentiment is not uncommon. The latest Home Office statistics show that a higher rate of religious hate crime is targeted towards Jewish people over any other faith group. Both online and in person, British Jews experience a very real threat while living their everyday lives.
The Yeshurun Hebrew congregation sits proudly in my constituency and does so much for the wider community, but I know from speaking to the leaders at the synagogue that keeping the congregation safe is becoming ever more difficult, despite their best efforts. They told me about the lengths to which they must go to protect their community, including increasing wall heights, as it was assessed that someone could get over the existing wall in just 10 seconds; looking at additional CCTV provision to ensure that every single corner is covered; and keeping children from playing outside in the car park in case an attack happens and they cannot get inside. I was told that people often question whether they should attend their synagogue because of the potential for harm. We must be clear: no one should have to consider those things to practise their faith, and it should make us angry that that is the case.
Things need to change. We need solutions, conscious action and resolve. The CST must be properly funded. I was lucky enough to visit its headquarters, so I could see the vital work it is doing to keep people safe and secure, and I thank it for everything it does. We must see an increase in police presence and patrols. Greater Manchester police do an incredible job in working with our Jewish community, but their resources are becoming ever more stretched. They need more capacity to ensure that they can deliver proper neighbourhood policing. The Government must act on their community cohesion strategy without delay. When people feel connected and invested in common values, they are better able to work together to address division and tackle hatred.
We cannot rest until our Jewish friends and neighbours no longer need to build high walls, install more cameras and stop their children playing outside. I urge the Minister to do everything in her power to ensure that the Jewish community is safe, and I urge all Members not to rely merely on the words spoken in this Chamber, but to turn those words into action. Through positive action, challenging antisemitism wherever it appears and standing with our Jewish communities when they need support, we will surely ensure that our country is a safe place for Jews.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing a very important debate.
The safety of the Jewish community is not a marginal issue. It goes absolutely to the heart of the kind of country that we want to be. British Jews should be able to go to synagogue, send their children to school, travel, work and live openly as Jews without fear, intimidation or abuse. I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust, the police, synagogue security volunteers and Jewish schools and community organisations for their vital work, but it should trouble every one of us that such work is so necessary.
The scale of the challenge is clear. CST recorded almost 2,000 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second highest total ever reported in the first six months of a year. That is not a short-term spike that has simply passed; it is a sustained change in the atmosphere faced by Jewish communities. This is not about asking for special treatment, but about the basic right to live without being held collectively responsible for events that happen around the world.
No child should ever grow up thinking that security guards outside their school are a fact of life, yet for many Jewish children that is exactly what normality looks like right now. The Community Security Trust recorded almost 200 antisemitic incidents affecting schools in the first half of this year, the highest January-to-June total that it has recorded. Jewish children should not have to pass security guards on their way to school as if it were normal. Young people should never have to choose between their safety and being openly Jewish, and Jewish students should not have to change their routes across campus or hide parts of who they are.
The Government must continue to support the security of Jewish communal life. However, as other Members have said, the answer cannot simply be higher fences and more guards. We must deal with the hatred that makes those fences necessary. That requires serious work on online radicalisation, proper enforcement against antisemitism in schools and universities, and a social cohesion strategy that is prepared to confront hard truths. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those issues.
Jewish citizens are asking for what every citizen in the UK should rightly expect: the right to live, worship, study and contribute openly and safely. That is the absolute minimum that a decent society must guarantee for us all.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I stand with Jewish communities right across the United Kingdom. We cannot speak about the safety of Jewish people in Britain without remembering the appalling events of 7 October. The slaughter carried out by Hamas was an act of barbaric terrorism and violent antisemitism. Men, women and children were murdered simply because they were Jewish. I have said before that those who value democracy must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in the face of such terrorism, and I make no apology for repeating it today.
I am increasingly concerned not only by what we have seen, but by what we have failed to hear. There have been occasions when some in this House who are vocal on many international issues have struggled to offer the most basic condemnation of the murder of Jewish people or of the hatred that motivated it. That silence matters. It matters because Jewish people in this country should not have to wonder whether the institutions that are supposed to protect them will stand with them when antisemitism becomes uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.
We have seen antisemitism manifest in the streets, at demonstrations on university campuses and, tragically, in attacks on Jewish people and institutions. We saw it over the weekend in Northern Ireland, when athletes were prevented from taking part in a triathlon not because they had committed any offences, had been racist or had provoked hatred; no, it was simply because they were from Israel. People of all faiths and none represent Israel in international sport.
We have seen the consequences of the normalisation of hatred. Indeed, the slogan “From the river to the sea” is used by those in this House. Just consider its meaning: the obliteration of the state of Israel and all who live within it. We must be absolutely clear that antisemitism is not a legitimate political position or acceptable criticism. It is hatred directed at people because they are Jewish, and it must be confronted wherever it appears.
This debate is fundamentally about equality. There are no second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. Every citizen should be able to walk down their street, attend their place of worship, send their children to school and express their faith without fear of intimidation or attack. It is therefore deeply troubling that Jewish people feel that they have to conceal their identity or alter their behaviour simply to feel safe. If a Jewish person is advised not to walk down a particular street, or feels unsafe wearing a kippah openly, we should not simply accept that as the unfortunate reality in modern Britain. We should not settle for that standard. Generations before us fought and made sacrifices so that people in this country could live freely, practise their faith and express their identity without fear. The Jewish community must be entitled to the same freedoms.
We must remember that antisemitism did not begin with 7 October and will not disappear simply because the headlines move on. We have a responsibility to learn the lessons of history and ensure that Jewish people in Britain today do not remember the promise of “never again” as something that belongs only in the past. They must be able to live it, walk our streets freely, wear the symbols of their faith openly, attend synagogues without fear, send their children to school without worrying about whether they will face hatred because they are Jewish, and know that when antisemitism raises its ugly head, this Parliament, this Government and the wider British public will stand with them.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing this vital debate. The conversations I have with my Jewish constituents and friends about safety and security are heartbreaking. We must reflect on the fact that in this country, in 2026, Jewish people are talking to their MPs about emigrating for their own safety, about changing their names to avoid discrimination, and about escorting their children to school because they fear what might happen if they do not.
When Jewish people are attacked on our streets and so many people feel unsafe in the place they call home, it is a national emergency and deserves to be treated as such. The prejudice they face is old, but it is never far from the surface. I know from my time as a whistleblower on antisemitism in the Labour party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission that, when our politics tolerates it, hatred and ignorance can rear their ugly heads. That is why I am proud that this Labour party and this Government—under different leadership—have taken important steps through record funding for the safety of the Jewish community, the social cohesion plan, and banning groups such as the IRGC.
Those are actions, not words, but we all know that so much more needs to be done. When I recently met the leaders of the four synagogues in my constituency of Altrincham and Sale West, they made that very clear. That message has been reinforced in my meetings with the Jewish Leadership Council. This is not just about the immediate safety of Jewish residents; it is about creating a society in which we do not need security services guarding synagogues and schools. Crucial to that is education.
That brings me to the issue on which I will press the Government today: antisemitism on campus. The Union of Jewish Students, which I was proud to work with as a student and a student union officer, and which I am proud to have hosted here as a Member of Parliament, has reported a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents since the 7 October massacre. The situation remains completely unacceptable. From being held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government to hearing fellow students defend Hamas, Jewish students are routinely made to feel unwelcome and scared at a time that should be one of the most enjoyable experiences of their lives.
I welcome the Government’s existing work with universities across the country on adopting best practice guidance put forward by the Union of Jewish Students, but we must urgently go further faster. I therefore urge the Minister to work with colleagues on current regulatory gaps, which mean there is a lack of clarity and accountability on the oversight of students’ unions. These gaps must be filled to ensure that we do not have a postcode lottery on the tolerance of antisemitism on our campuses.
I also join colleagues in asking the Minister to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of the Protecting What Matters strategy, which was a welcome step forward in tackling extremism at universities, but which must be backed up by results. Similarly, following the Macdonald review, there must be an approach that balances respecting academic freedoms and the ability to protest with the absolute right for Jewish students to feel safe on campus. That is a balance that has been lost at times in recent years, but it must now be restored.
When we debate antisemitism and Jewish safety, we are right to point out all that is wrong and the action needed to put it right, but I would like to end by talking briefly about something that should give us all hope: The Rabbi & The Imam project. Through the project, my constituents, Rabbi Dovid Lewis from Bowdon shul and Dr Nasser Kurdy from Altrincham and Hale Muslim Association, go into schools to talk about their faiths and to promote a simple message of humanity and understanding. Programmes like that see off intolerance before it is able to take root. They are essential to the safety of all faiths in this country and to long-term protections for religious freedom and expression. The Rabbi & The Imam project offers a reminder that, although antisemitism and the violence it fosters remain a national emergency, there are amazing projects and amazing people doing incredible work to tackle it. We must match that spirit and commitment to unity in this place if we are to make this country a safer place for Jewish citizens.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this really important debate. We have heard such powerful contributions about the scale of the issue and powerful proposals for how we can challenge it.
I represent some of the most diverse communities in the United Kingdom, including historic Jewish communities. I represent one of the oldest continuously serving synagogues in Europe, Bevis Marks, as well as the Liberal Jewish synagogue, New London synagogue in St John’s Wood, and St John’s Wood synagogue. They all welcome diverse Jewish communities every week.
We cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge we face. Every Jewish Londoner should be able to go to school, attend synagogue, travel to work and take part in public life without fear, yet they cannot; antisemitism remains far too common. The Community Security Trust reports that antisemitic incidents remain at very high levels, and increased during the first half of 2026. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognise that many of us have never experienced such a high level of antisemitism in our lifetime. These are not just statistics; they affect real people, communities, and our friends, neighbours and families.
Last week, at a meeting with my local rabbis and synagogue chairs, whom I meet regularly, I heard at first hand just how my constituents are feeling. Just this weekend, there was an incident in my constituency in which there was profound surveillance of a synagogue, and the response times were completely unacceptable. I will come shortly to our response to this problem.
I want to put on the record my support and thanks for the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). We have heard some reflections on the disgusting conflation of geopolitical events with individuals and communities in this country. Such conflation is profoundly antisemitic, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, we absolutely need to be looking at the causes of that and put in place education measures.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Rachel Blake
I will make some progress.
I welcome the Government’s support for security at Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, as well as the announcement in July of £250 million for Jewish community safety. However, as we have heard so powerfully today, security funding alone is not enough, and none of us wants to be in a place where we are building higher walls. We need to take stronger action against hate crime.
We have briefly heard about what is happening in London at weekends, when neighbourhood police are drawn into the centre of London to police demonstrations. We need to be honest about the hate crime that takes place at such demonstrations, and we must take the toughest possible action against it. We need stronger action and a closer focus on neighbourhood policing, so that every synagogue understands and knows its neighbourhood police officers and has a relationship with them that gives its members confidence in their local community. We need stronger action on antisemitism online; I pay tribute to the work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust on that specific issue, which I believe needs a greater focus. We need continued Holocaust education and clear leadership in calling out antisemitism, wherever it occurs.
The safety of Jewish Londoners is not just an issue for those Jewish communities. It is an issue for all of us. When those in a community feel unsafe because of who they are, it affects us all and damages all our communities. We must stand firm against antisemitism and ensure that every Jewish Londoner can live openly, proudly and safely.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on Jewish safety, and to represent one of Britain’s oldest seaside Jewish communities as the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East. Jewish families in Bournemouth have built businesses, strengthened our heritage and contributed to civic life, and we have had a number of Jewish mayors, including Louis Barney, Gabriel Jaffe, Michael and Anne Filer, Pamela Harris, Ben Grower, Barry Goldbart and Lawrence Williams.
I was privileged to attend the consecration of the new synagogue for the Bournemouth Hebrew Congregation in East Cliff—my neighbourhood—in the presence of the Chief Rabbi just a few short months ago. It marked a new chapter in the life of the Jewish community in Bournemouth. The new shul has been refurbished, and throughout the building there are colours inspired by Bournemouth’s sand, cliffs, piers and breakwaters. The light-filled main prayer hall has a series of stained-glass images, many of which recreate those from the old Wootton Gardens synagogue. I was pleased to visit that synagogue many times, including for its farewell concert, which showed that a new start means that we must also say farewell.
My Jewish constituents deserve what every citizen deserves: to feel safe. The statistics tell part of the story: Dorset police tell me that they recorded 26 antisemitic crimes across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole in the year to May, and every one of those crimes matters, but statistics alone cannot explain what it feels like when fear enters everyday life. For that, we must listen to the people in Bournemouth, so I encouraged my constituents to get in touch ahead of this debate.
Ann told me that she has removed the Star of David necklace that she wore throughout her life because she no longer feels comfortable openly displaying her Jewish identity. Stefan from East Cliff and Springbourne wrote:
“We are alone, we are afraid.”
At the age of 73, he has never experienced such open antisemitism, and he speaks now of conversations taking place around dinner tables that many had hoped belonged to history. David, a retired rabbi, said that British Jews regard themselves as British citizens first and foremost, and he spoke of generations of Jewish people serving our country in our armed forces, of prayers being said in synagogues each week for the royal family and the Government, and of a public duty throughout our town.
I know some Jewish patients in my constituency are reluctant to identify their faith when admitted to hospital, because they fear how they may be treated. I want them to know that, following Lord Mann’s review, the Government are requiring anti-racism training aimed at tackling antisemitism and other racism in the NHS. Another constituent, who is not Jewish himself, showed solidarity by writing to me about friends who feel unsafe and threatened.
Josephine, who has happily lived in Bournemouth for more than two decades, told me that she never expected to face continual hostility and intimidation. She and her husband recently celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary at the synagogue, but they felt compelled to employ security guards for the event. Adele, who is 82, spoke movingly of her grandparents who found safety, democracy and peace of mind in our country, and she tells me:
“All we ask is to live here in peace and free from fear.”
Derek describes the reality that many Jewish people now live with, following the atrocities of 7 October and the war that followed, which has left many Jewish people spending their time, in his words, “watching our backs”, relying on police protection and the Community Security Trust to guard places of worship and community events.
Several members of the community have been in touch to talk about a particular incident in Bournemouth Square last year. Alongside Jewish residents and Christian supporters, a small protest—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid we now have to move on to the wind-ups.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate. It has been a powerful morning in this Chamber, in terms of both the challenges but also the stories of hope on this difficult issue. I want to start by expressing my solidarity with Jewish communities across the country and with everyone who is experiencing antisemitic abuse, intimidation or violence.
Tom Hayes
On a point of order, Sir Christopher. I was under the impression that there was no time limit. I was not warned in advance of the need to reduce the length of my speech. I have deliberately solicited the views of my constituents, which I want to put on the official parliamentary record, about an issue that affects them very deeply, which is their feeling of insecurity and discontent in our country because of antisemitism. I am concerned that they have been unrepresented on the parliamentary record because you, as Chair, have artificially circumscribed the time limit. I ask that I be given the chance to speak fully and represent my constituents’ views in their entirety.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I did not impose a time limit, but there is always half an hour at the end for the wind-ups. You have been a Member of this House now for over two years. You must realise that in an hour-and-a-half debate, there is an hour for the speeches and half an hour for the wind-ups.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
You are shaking your head; I am sorry you have not been able to learn on the job, but I am not going to accept criticism for calling the Front Benchers at half-past to enable them all to participate in this debate and, hopefully, give a chance for the person who initiated it to have a few words at the end. I am almost lost for words, because the hon. Gentleman should have realised when we got to half-past that that was the end of the time for Back Benchers and when the Front Benchers start speaking. But anyway, perhaps—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
No, I am not going to accept a further point of order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will learn from what has happened this morning.
Zöe Franklin
The latest Home Office figures show that there were 106 religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people per 10,000 of the Jewish population—by far the highest rate, sadly, for any religious group. Behind these shocking figures are people who are changing the way they live, as we have heard in this morning’s debate, because they are frightened—frightened of being attacked, abused or intimidated simply for practising their faith.
I see that in my own constituency of Guildford, which has a relatively small but growing Jewish community of around 450 residents, which rises to 600 during university term time. Members of the community have told me clearly that since the horrific attacks of 7 October, the tone has noticeably shifted in the community. Our local rabbi has received death threats and has even been physically assaulted in public. Jewish residents have faced verbal abuse, a swastika has been drawn at a local golf course, and a single Jewish mother had a rotten chicken thrown through her open window while she was with her five-year-old child, and those are not isolated incidents.
What has stayed with me the most, though, is hearing that some local Jewish families have moved their mezuzah from the outside of their front door to the inside because they are frightened of being identified as Jewish. That is an extraordinary thing for anyone to feel they must do in Britain in 2026 to keep their family safe. It is why I believe our response must be about much more than simply reacting when another terrible thing happens. We need to step up, as community leaders and as Parliament. We need to ensure that Jewish communities are protected now, but we also need to tackle the hatred that makes that protection necessary in the first place.
I welcome the Government’s additional £25 million for security following the attacks in Golders Green, bringing the total available to £58 million. I have seen how much that investment matters. The Guildford synagogue has had to spend thousands of pounds upgrading security, and our rabbi has had to spend money improving his own personal security. I refuse to accept that this is simply the way society is turning—that violence and intimidation is now being normalised. Will the Minister explain what long-term certainty the Government will provide for the Community Security Trust and for the security funding relied upon by synagogues, Jewish schools and community organisations? Protecting buildings is necessary, but it is not enough.
We also have to ensure that our police and prosecutors can identify antisemitism and act when the law is broken. I want to be really clear on protest. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy, but there is no right to intimidate Jewish people, to glorify terrorism or to use protest as a cover for antisemitic hatred or incitement to violence. It should not be a difficult distinction for us to make as a society.
We Liberal Democrats have called for mandatory antisemitism training for police officers policing demonstrations, as part of a statutory code for the policing of protests. That would also include stronger protections around places of worship, and place responsibilities on protest organisers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and intimidation. I really do think that those are practical steps that the Government should take seriously. Will the Minister consider introducing consistent antisemitism training for officers policing protests across the country?
Will the Government also consider again how we protect synagogues and other places of worship from intimidating protests immediately outside them? The same applies when cases reach the justice system. I could go on, and I know that colleagues across this Chamber have raised a number of issues in relation to that point.
I also want to note the gap between the official statistics and what Jewish residents say that they experience. I hear it in my own constituency of Guilford, and I am sure that colleagues hear the same. Many incidents are never reported to the police. Others happen in schools, universities and workplaces and are dealt with internally, which means that they simply disappear from the national picture. If we do not understand the scale of antisemitism, we cannot properly respond to it.
We have talked this morning about the crucial issue of educating people to understand what is and what is not acceptable in our language. We have also heard about Sir David Bell’s review of antisemitism in schools. I have, sadly, heard too many stories in my own constituency and in neighbouring ones of children and young people facing antisemitism within their education setting. I am glad that Sir David Bell’s review is coming. Will the Minister commit to responding quickly to the review and its recommendations when it comes out?
I want to end by sharing something positive, as many colleagues have done at the end of their speeches, too. I want to share the genuinely positive work happening in Guildford. I am glad that Surrey police have developed a stronger liaison relationship with our Jewish community. Guildford and Waverley councils, Surrey police, Jewish residents and local faith leaders have worked together on a hate-crime pledge. We have growing relationships between the Jewish community, the Reform Jewish community in Weybridge, and Woking mosque. Those relationships are crucial. They show that even at times of terrible conflict and division internationally, Jewish and Muslim communities here can continue to talk to one another, support one another and refuse to allow events overseas to divide neighbours at home.
I was proud to stand with local faith leaders and civic leaders with the Guildford declaration of freedom of religion and belief. That work is crucial, and it brings me to the issue of inter-faith initiatives. Sadly, inter-faith funding has largely disappeared. Will the Government consider reinstating the crucial grassroots inter-faith funding, which is at the core of enabling positive cross-faith work?
Ultimately, I do not want the measure of success for how the Jewish community is being protected to be about how many security guards we have funded or how many hate crimes have been recorded. I want Jewish families to feel comfortable putting their mezuzah back outside their front door. I want Jewish children to be able to talk about their faith openly, without worrying how other pupils will react. I want the Jewish community in my constituency of Guildford to be able to light the menorah on the high street without the need for armed police to make that possible. That requires proper security funding now, but it also requires better policing, better education, stronger enforcement online and investment in relationships that prevent hatred from growing in the first place.
I think that everyone in this Chamber agrees that antisemitism has no place in our society. We should not accept Jewish people having to change how visibly Jewish they are in order to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to set out more on the practical steps that the Government will take to help ensure that that is the reality.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate on an issue important to so many of her constituents.
Despite having been in this role for only a couple of years, I have too often stood opposite Ministers to condemn violence against and, on solemn occasions, mourn the loss of life in the Jewish community—people targeted for no reason other than being Jewish. When those tragedies happen, we seem to find ourselves in the same post-tragedy discourse, with public figures stating that antisemitism has no place in our society, rightly acknowledging that it is an evil that must be vanquished. Yet how hollow must those words ring when British Jews know that another incident could merely be round the corner?
When the Golders Green attack occurred, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to state clearly:
“This is a national emergency”.
As with any emergency, there is no single solution. It requires multiple measures, but underpinning those must be a willingness to tackle the underlying ideologies that allow this hatred to fester. Today the facts are stark. Having visited the Community Security Trust’s headquarters, I join hon. Members in recognising the organisation’s incredible professionalism. The CST data released in August showed that between January and June, antisemitic incidents reached the second highest total ever reported to the trust in the first six months of any year. That is a disgrace.
Prior to October 2023, the CST had only ever recorded monthly incident totals exceeding 200 on five occasions. In the first half of 2026, the organisation logged more than 200 incidents of anti-Jewish hate in every single month, and more than 300 a month from March to June. Those incidents ranged from threats to life, assaults and arson to damage and desecration of Jewish property and abusive behaviour.
But there is another statistic that should stop every Member of this House in their tracks. The latest Home Office figures show that in England and Wales, there were 106 police recorded religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people for every 10,000 Jewish people. Across the population as a whole, the equivalent rate was 1.7 recorded religious hate crimes per 10,000 people. If we put those figures alongside one another, the disparity is extraordinary and horrifying. On that population-adjusted measure, the rate of recorded religious hate crime targeting Jewish people was more than 60 times the rate in the overall population—I repeat, more than 60 times the rate. Religious hate crime is concentrated against Britain’s Jewish community, and on an extraordinary and horrifying scale.
In modern Britain, that fact should shock every one of us: it is a stinging indictment of where we are and why this debate is so necessary. It also illustrates why the Government were right, in the summer, to allocate further police resources to tackling the issue. Ultimately, across matters of enforcement, we need to increase police presence, see urgent prosecutions, put a moratorium on hate marches, implement maximum sentencing and deterrence, conduct a comprehensive audit of counter-terrorism cases involving antisemitic motivation, deport foreigners who express antisemitic views supporting violence or terrorism, and better use existing powers to ensure that hatred cannot be targeted at Jewish communities.
The question I have is this: is enforcement enough, when the ideas that fester continue to be popular? Many of us across this House were fortunate enough to go to university; yet, as has been said, polling conducted for the Union of Jewish Students earlier this year paints a horrendous picture. How can someone feel safe when one fifth of the university campus would not share a house with them and one in four have seen behaviour targeting Jewish students? Can the Minister confirm when the Government will publish the Bell review into antisemitism in schools, and whether they will accept its recommendations in full?
There is nothing intellectual about prejudice, there is nothing progressive about excluding Jews and there is nothing enlightened about recycling vile conspiracy theories that are centuries old. The same polling found that 16% thought it was not antisemitic to claim that Jews control the media or government. We need to tackle the ideologies creating this mindset, because antisemitism does not begin with an attack on a synagogue. It begins with ideas and conspiracy theories. It begins when Jews are treated as a sinister collective and ancient prejudices are allowed to spread under new guises. The need to tackle this across communities is unfortunately clear.
Polling by Policy Exchange this year found that more than two in five British Muslims believed that Jews had too much power over the media, weapons manufacturing and the banking system. We should be capable of saying two things at once: the overwhelming majority of British Muslims are not responsible for antisemitism and should never be treated as though they are, but when antisemitic attitudes exist within any communities, we do that community and British Jews no favours by being frightened to confront them.
Siân Berry
At a recent event hosted by my wonderful local progressive synagogue, lots of issues were raised with me. This is a synagogue—it is not a representative of the Israeli Government. We cannot have anyone conflating Jewish faith with that. This is a synagogue that prays for Palestinians every week, but in that place, in my progressive city of Brighton and Hove, security and safety were still the absolute backdrop to everything raised; they have real fear. Would the hon. Member agree that it is so important for us to build solidarity and cohesion in communities, and make sure we do not drive further wedges between people in tackling this issue?
Matt Vickers
I agree that opening doors is part of the solution, but I also agree that we have to tackle antisemitism wherever it might be, and it is most prominent.
The same applies to antisemitism on the far right. Hatred does not become acceptable because of the politics of the person expressing it. These views go to the heart of the problem. It is not enough merely to have resources to protect the Jewish community. We must combat the intellectual idiocy that upholds and spreads antisemitic views. The test of a liberal democracy is not whether the majority feel safe; it is whether minorities can live openly as themselves, without fear.
I have taken a sombre tone because it is impossible to look at the current situation with rose-tinted glasses. However, for the vast majority of people, antisemitic hatred remains abhorrent. The university polling showed that many recognise this hatred when they see it, with 82% deeming calls to “globalise the intifada” to be antisemitic. That majority matters, but a tolerant majority cannot afford to become a silent majority.
My request to the Government today is twofold: first, to use the powers of the state unapologetically to protect Jewish people, and secondly, to go further upstream, work with the Jewish community, listen to Jewish students, challenge institutions that allow antisemitism to flourish, confront extremist ideology regardless of where it originates and, when making decisions in response to events in the middle east, remember that British Jews must never be treated as proxies for the actions of an Israeli Government. Whatever our political disagreements, that principle should be utterly uncontroversial.
I know that Members across the House want to see the Jewish community safe, but wanting is no longer enough. When the population-adjusted rate of recorded hate crime targeting Jews stands at more than 60 times the overall population rate, when Jewish students are questioning whether they belong on their own campuses and when Jewish families require security simply to practise their faith, we have to recognise the scale of the emergency before us. That is not simply a problem for the British Jewish community; it is a test for Britain, this Government, this House and our country, and it is one we cannot afford to fail.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to close this debate, which I think has been very useful and moving. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on initiating it.
Before I respond to Members’ questions and to the debate itself, I have two reflections. One is to reiterate the commitment from this Government that we recognise we are on a journey to tackle antisemitism. Although I appreciate that many Members welcomed the funding that we have put in place and the changes that we are making, this will not be the end of the journey. We are on that journey to tackle antisemitism and we will do whatever is necessary for it. We have taken measures that many Members have talked about today, but that will not be the sum of everything we intend to do. We certainly do not intend to shy away from the huge challenge that we all face.
My second reflection, from listening to the MPs in this place who made such powerful speeches, is that as Members of Parliament we are all leaders of this country, and we should all ensure that we are well educated, trained and equipped to answer the call to tackle antisemitism. Whether that means going on the training days provided to Members of Parliament by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, or reading, or talking to and listening to our Jewish friends in our communities, it is incumbent on every single one of us to play a role in this debate and to be the leaders that people elect us to be. I was very struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said about how people are retreating from the public space because of their fear.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
As we heard, we face perhaps the worst antisemitism crisis certainly of my lifetime on the streets, in people’s daily lives and online. I am Jewish, and when I go to synagogue at the end of this week to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, I will walk past security guards. That should never have to happen, but it is utterly normal for the Jewish community.
We have seen a normalisation of hostility that has left many of my constituents wondering about their future in this country. Does the Minister agree that, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said so clearly, it is not just a matter of building higher walls? We must be able to build a situation where Jewish people can live proud and open Jewish lives, free from fear. Does the Minister also agree that this is an all-of-society problem that requires an all-of-society response?
Sarah Jones
I completely agree that the solution is not just to build higher walls. If our Jewish friends and colleagues are retreating from the public space for fear of their own safety, we have to loudly make sure that that public space is full enough with the call against antisemitism, so that we can rebuild a society where people feel comfortable speaking openly about their religion and their faith, proud of being Jews in Britain and being able to exercise their religious rights freely.
I will respond to the points made as fully as I can. Many Members talked about the Protecting What Matters commitments. We are keen for the work to expand and be done as quickly as possible, and a whole cohort of work under that banner is being done as we speak. The disruptions team, which horizon scans for extremist influence and events, is being expanded with additional resources. Efforts to stop hate preachers and extremists entering the UK are increasing as part of an expanded global visa taskforce, which is important.
Work is going on to ensure that we report back to Parliament on our work. An annual “State of extremism” report is being developed, and the first iteration of that will be published this year. Embedding the 2024 definition of extremism and the engagement principles across Government means clearer guidance and improved training. Updating and embedding the 2024 engagement principles helps public bodies not to confer legitimacy, funding—crucially—or influence on extremist groups. A whole body of work is therefore being undertaken, and the annual “State of extremism” report will be published.
Several Members talked about universities, which are incredibly important, and referred to a powerful report that I have also read. Members quoted some absolutely shocking statistics. I was privileged to be at a roundtable with members of various universities, the Office for Students, Lord Mann and several representatives from the Jewish community talking about antisemitism in our universities. I know that there is a big programme of work under way to look at training, to make sure that there is funding to support new guidance from the Office for Students, to invest in the University Jewish Chaplaincy services and to make sure we work across different Departments, which was also mentioned, to tackle this issue.
From a policing point of view, my engagement on this issue is largely on some of the smaller unplanned protests that happen in Jewish spaces and trying to work with local police in those situations as to being clear who is responsible and how those issues are going to be tackled.
Catherine West
On that point, may I commend the police in Barnet in the run-up to the local elections, which is always a tense time? I want to put on record how outstanding the communication, reassurance and work with our local leaders—both Conservative and Labour—on Barnet council was.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that praise. I am sure that it will be well appreciated and I absolutely endorse what she has said.
Members asked about the IRGC and the extra work being done beyond its sanctioning. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals. Iran has been placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and we are going after the criminal networks, proxies, enablers and illicit finance networks used by the IRGC, including with sanctions against criminal proxies. A lot of work is being done.
Members also asked when the David Bell report will be published. That will be this autumn, and it is important work about tackling antisemitism in schools.
I should touch on the funding that we have put in place following the awful attacks that we have seen in recent times and an absolutely dismal story of antisemitism and violence to which we as a Government have had to respond. Last April we provided an additional £25 million, initially to fund increased officer patrols and disruption deployments. We spent time just before the summer recess having a series of meetings with Jewish community colleagues, Jewish leaders and others, including a summit in Downing Street, talking about what extra was required. Just before the summer, we announced over £250 million of additional funding for the police to tackle antisemitism over the next three years.
That includes training for police officers, which the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), asked about. Antisemitism training will be rolled out across policing as part of that work. That work is being largely done in our big cities where our Jewish communities mostly live and £85.8 million will be allocated to the Metropolitan Police Service. It will deliver 300 dedicated personnel to support the work that the Metropolitan police have already been doing. Other areas—Hertfordshire, Essex, Northumbria, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire—will also be funded.
I am aware that I have not even really begun my speech, but that I now need to end it. I will do so where I started: by thanking all Members for their contributions. This is a journey, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our Jewish communities feel safe where they live and proud of their religion. We will do whatever we need to do to make sure that that can be delivered.
Catherine West
We have had an excellent debate. It is always a good debate when we want to say more but cannot fit it in. I thank everybody, across all the parties, for contributing to it.
The problem of tackling antisemitism will take the whole of our polity. That means all of us: local, national, school governors, public sector workers, the private sector and trade union colleagues. It will take everybody to look this in the eye and sort it.
We have had a good debate and, as the Minister says, it is a journey. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister is so intimately aware of the Manchester picture. I know that he is also engaged with London Board of Deputies colleagues as well. We look forward to a brighter future and to working together to tackle the scourge of antisemitism in our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the safety of the Jewish community.
World Suicide Prevention Day
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Suicide Prevention Day.
I am grateful for having secured this debate, Sir Christopher, and it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for it. This Thursday is World Suicide Prevention Day, an event marked through the World Health Organisation. Each year, 10 September provides a moment for individuals, communities and Governments around the globe to unite behind one clear, unambiguous message: that suicides are preventable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate on World Suicide Prevention Day. The Farm Safety Foundation has surveyed some 450 farmers under the age of 40, of whom 92% identified poor mental health as one of the leading hidden problems facing farmers today. Those challenges can be further compounded by stigma and reluctance to seek help, which are particularly prevalent in rural communities. Is the hon. Lady aware of the challenges people in rural farming communities face when trying to access mental health support? Does she agree that more must be done for that sector, who seem overwhelmingly to suffer isolation?
Liz Twist
I am indeed aware of that work and of the difficulties faced by the farming community, and it is important that we address those. This year, as in the last two years, the theme for World Suicide Prevention Day is “Changing the Narrative on Suicide”, accompanied by a direct call to action to start the conversation.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the amazing work that she continues to do day in, day out on this subject. I filmed a documentary last week called “Walking Men”—it will be out later this year—about how we support local groups to get men talking on a regular basis. Will she join me in saying thank you to all the people out there who do that? Does she agree that the Government need to get behind local groups, who know their area and their people and can make a massive difference?
Liz Twist
I am pleased to hear about that work, and I certainly agree that it is vital that we support all those who are making efforts locally to address the issue of suicide.
Changing the narrative means a conscious, collective shift away from the culture of silence, stigma and misunderstanding that has plagued this subject for generations. It requires us to move towards openness, empathy and genuine support, to create an environment where people feel able to speak openly about their distress without fear of judgment. We must reach a point at which talking about suicidal thoughts is met with compassion rather than fear and where seeking help is viewed as a sign of strength.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for this timely and important debate. The point about changing the narrative is very important. Will she support me in congratulating Alfie’s Squad, who are here today for World Suicide Prevention Day, and all the football clubs, including Everton and Liverpool, for the work they do in engaging with people with suicidal thoughts?
Liz Twist
I look forward to meeting Alfie’s Squad later today; they are doing a great job on suicide prevention in my hon. Friend’s area. I will come on to the Premier League shortly.
I turn to the global statistics. The World Health Organisation calls suicide a “major public health challenge” and estimates that it claims the lives of more than 720,000 people every year. In the UK, the latest Office for National Statistics figures show that in 2024 there were 7,147 deaths registered where the cause was recorded as suicide. We know from the data that men account for three in four of those deaths, and that suicide is the biggest single cause of death for men under the age of 50.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for her dedication and hard work in this space. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for tradespeople, and having previously served on the all-party parliamentary group on male suicide and mental health, I am concerned that the construction industry faces a suicide risk 3.7 times higher than the national average. Will she join me in ensuring that the men’s health strategy moves from paper to practical action in workplaces, particularly in the construction industry? When we talk about workers coming home safely, that must mean both physically and mentally.
Liz Twist
Having done some work with the construction sector, I know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about and how much attention must be paid to that issue.
Sadly, my region, the north-east, has the highest number of deaths by suicide. That is not a league table that we want to top. The latest figures put the north-east’s rate at 15.1 deaths per 100,000 people. For men who have been referred to secondary mental health services, it climbs to 157.8 per 100,000. That harsh reality demands urgent, targeted intervention.
Whenever we see such statistics in Parliament, we must immediately remind ourselves that there are real people behind the numbers. Each one of those individuals whose life was cut short leaves behind a devastating legacy of grief. The ripple effect of a single suicide spreads relentlessly through families, circles of friends and workplaces, and inflicts severe social and emotional consequences on entire communities.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Like everyone else, I acknowledge the tremendous work that my hon. Friend does on this issue; it is inspirational. Since she mentions families, I want to take the opportunity to thank my constituent Emma Webb, who tragically lost her daughter, Brodie, aged just 16. My hon. Friend is aware of Emma, who has spent years tirelessly fundraising for and raising awareness of suicide prevention. Alongside the bands doing a benefit for the Samaritans in the pub, there is a lot of work going on locally that we should acknowledge.
Liz Twist
I know that campaign, and I met my hon. Friend’s constituent as she pulled her pony along to raise money. She is doing tremendous work in that area.
Alongside the immeasurable human cost of suicide, there is a stark economic reality. Extensive statistical work conducted by the Samaritans and provided by Mind calculates the economic cost of a single suicide as roughly £1.46 million. No one in this Chamber would ever wish to reduce a human life to an entry on the Treasury balance sheet, but that figure demonstrates that proper investment in suicide prevention is an economic necessity as well as a clear moral imperative.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Like everybody else, I thank the hon. Lady for her incredibly important work in this field. Alongside my constituent Philip Pirie, I have been calling on the Government to launch a public health campaign to tackle the stigma around suicide. Former Health Secretaries have actively supported the call, alongside the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the hon. Lady herself. Does she agree that the Prime Minister needs to prioritise breaking down the barriers and the stigma, and work in a cross-party way with Members of this House to support my campaign?
Liz Twist
I will mention the hon. Lady’s constituent later; I am aware of the great work that he has done after the loss of his son by suicide. I agree that we all need to get behind that campaign, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will be keen to do that too.
The statistics paint a bleak picture, but I want to focus on the positive work being done across the UK on and around World Suicide Prevention Day to prevent suicide and change the narrative. There are so many organisations and individuals working to build hope and fighting to reverse these trends, offering real, practical help and support to people who are struggling.
When we look at our statutory services, we must recognise the vital role played by our national health service. I pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of NHS mental health staff, who work under immense pressure every single day to provide compassionate, lifesaving care to those in crisis. But NHS talking therapies and other work can support only those who are successfully referred, and a significant gap remains among those accessing that care. For instance, despite having acute mental health needs, men account for only 36% of referrals to NHS talking therapies. That mismatch shows that, even with the outstanding commitment of frontline clinicians, statutory services cannot carry the weight of suicide prevention alone. They rely on close partnerships with community and voluntary organisations to reach people before they reach crisis.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her courageous work on this issue, and for introducing the debate today. Will she join me in thanking those organisations in my constituency, including Scott Grover’s work with his Men Walking and Talking group and the fantastic work of Steve and Talk Club? Talk Club has a lovely approach where they sit, talk and listen. They will not just ask whether people are okay; they will say, “On a scale of one to 10, how are you feeling today?”, and that opens up conversations about mental health and suicide in such a powerful way. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all my fantastic local groups for their efforts?
Liz Twist
I most certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking her local groups for that work. It is good to hear about so much attention being given to Men Walking and Talking in local groups where they can access help. I suppose we should mention Andy’s Man Club as well, which does amazing work across the country to get men talking.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this issue. I struggled with my own mental health after the traumatic birth of my son, as I think she knows. It was friends and family, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who helped me, but in York we also have fantastic local groups like Menfulness, founded by Dr Jack Woodhams. Will she praise them and thank them for getting men to talk, whether through sport, football or walking?
Liz Twist
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the struggles that he has had; by talking, we can learn more about them and tackle the issue. I certainly join him in thanking Menfulness. People are doing amazing work.
I want to talk about Samaritans. Samaritans began in 1953 in the city of London, founded by Chad Varah and arising from his experience of seeing lives lost to suicide—people who had no one to speak to. He advertised a telephone number that those contemplating suicide could call to speak to someone about how they were feeling. That work continues today, and is built on by the many outreach activities and the policy work led by Samaritans. I thank the many Samaritans volunteers who continue to listen and reach out in their local area to prevent suicides, including those in my local Tyneside Samaritans branch.
Tomorrow evening, Samaritans will mark World Suicide Prevention Day with a reception in Speaker’s House, held alongside the Premier League. The Premier League is doing excellent work in using the vast reach of football to support men, encouraging open conversations among groups who traditionally do not seek help. The charity Mind has a similar commitment, and it will be marking World Suicide Prevention Day in this House on Thursday morning. I am incredibly proud to sponsor its parliamentary reception this week, which will bring together campaigners, partners and clinicians to champion Mind’s vital work in our communities and to ensure that suicide prevention remains at the very top of our legislative agenda.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Autistic people are three times as likely as non-autistic people to die by suicide or attempt suicide. The 2023 suicide prevention strategy for England was the first to recognise autistic people as being at a higher risk of suicide. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an update on progress for autistic people under the strategy, and on how the Government intend to incorporate autism into future suicide prevention strategies?
Liz Twist
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s concerns about the need for action on autism. She may be pleased to hear that the all-party groups on suicide and self-harm prevention and on autism will be doing joint work on the matter in the near future. I thank her for her intervention and am sure that the Minister has heard her request for an update.
I will now unashamedly name-check several organisations in the north-east, although I do so with some trepidation because there are so many other groups that I will not be able to mention. We benefit immensely from the presence of the James’ Place charity in Newcastle, which provides specialist, rapid clinical interventions for men in suicidal crisis. The way it operates in our region is saving lives.
I highlight the incredible work of If U Care Share, which is based in County Durham. Its roots are embedded in the local community, offering emotional support and postvention care. It was formed from personal experience, following the death by suicide of one of the family, a young man, which I know still affects the family and a much wider group of people, and is still a real impetus for their work and fundraising.
I also recognise the charity SoBS, Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide, which provides peer-led support to families who are navigating an uniquely complex and isolating form of grief.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The hon. Lady is reading out a list of very good charities; I congratulate her on securing this debate. May I draw her attention to Ripple and Alice Hendy, to whom we at the Centre for Social Justice gave an award? Her “brown shield” technical device means that every time someone searches for a harmful site, something pops up to tell them where they can go for help and support. That has had a huge effect and needs to be rolled out further into schools and so on. I know that the hon. Lady knows that charity.
Liz Twist
The right hon. Gentleman touches on another angle, namely the world of the internet, which provides such a challenge. The work of Ripple is important in preventing that harm, but there is so much more to do. I congratulate Ripple on its award.
Jami UK is a Jewish mental health organisation with which I have done a good deal of work; given the subject of our previous debate today, it seems particularly appropriate to mention it. It does fantastic work in London and beyond, and is a regular contributor to the APPG.
Individuals have also transformed personal tragedy into relentless campaigning. We have already heard about Philip Pirie, who has worked on an assessment of suicide risk and is now pushing for training on it to be mandatory for NHS staff. The 3 Dads Walking campaign has captured the attention of the entire country. After losing their daughters Sophie, Beth and Emily to suicide, they marched together across the UK to demand that suicide prevention be taught in schools.
Amanda Martin
It is amazing that my hon. Friend is highlighting the fact that, so very often, out of tragedy come amazing families campaigning. I want to raise the case of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. Their families have been campaigning because their family members took their own life following coercive control. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must recognise the devastating link between suicide and coercive control, and ensure not only justice, but proper recognition and response?
Liz Twist
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I congratulate those families—“congratulate” does not seem the right word, but they are doing such amazing work in her community and it is really important to mention. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that part of the work plan for the APPG relates to the link between suicide and domestic abuse in its various forms. I look forward to working with her on that issue.
I mentioned 3 Dads Walking, who do absolutely fantastic work. Changes are being made to the relationships, sex and health education curriculum this year to pick up on that work and ensure that children are able to discuss suicide in a safe and age-appropriate way.
Most working adults spend a large part of their day at work, so employers clearly have a role to play. Last year, the British Standards Institution published BS 30480, the first formal standard for workplace suicide prevention. I was pleased to work on it with the BSI alongside employers, trade unions and suicide prevention experts. That guidance has now been downloaded over 13,500 times.
However, despite the immense amount of work being done by charities, campaigners and so many others, we have not yet managed to change the narrative completely. I know that I risk sounding like a broken record in this House on the issue, but while the overall figures stubbornly refuse to come down, I will continue to be a broken record. We need to bring the numbers down. As the World Health Organisation says, changing the narrative needs systemic change. As the Mental Health Foundation has argued for years, we need early intervention so that people receive support before their situation becomes acute.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on her lifetime of support for this cause. She makes such a valid point about changing the narrative and the stigma around suicide. This Government have made an incredible announcement of £343 million for walk-in mental health services. We are asking people to talk about how they are feeling and about how bad their mental health is, but they need those walk-in centres so that they can get treatment at the point that they feel suicidal. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on my local integrated care board to ensure that Redditch, which has the highest rate of poor mental health in Worcestershire, gets the mental health walk-in centre that it so deserves?
Liz Twist
I am not sure I know enough about my hon. Friend’s local area to tell his local ICB what to do, but I am sure he does, and I am sure he is making the case to his local ICB for walk-in centres in his area.
The new mental health hubs and emergency centres that were announced over the summer will be a vital step forward, as my hon. Friend says, in providing community-based support through capital funding. I hope that that will be followed by the revenue funding to provide the staff and resources to deliver consistent care, and I hope that the Minister can provide a bit more detail on the revenue question; I welcome her to her new post and am glad that she is here to answer the debate. The national suicide prevention strategy has just passed its halfway point, which makes this the ideal moment to assess what is working and where we need to do more. A great many actions have arisen from the strategy, which I commend, but sadly the numbers have not shifted.
For men, who make up 75% of those who die by suicide, how can we address their specific concerns? Can the Minister say what actions will be taken to revise the strategy so that it can achieve its goal of reducing suicides? Can she also say what she will do to ensure that mental health has parity of esteem with physical health, which was the subject of another Westminster Hall debate that I secured not long ago? Will she join me and other Members in thanking all the third sector organisations and individuals who do so much to change the narrative, and recognise their importance in preventing suicide? I hope that she will continue to work closely with me and the APPG to ensure that these strategies deliver the systemic change that we desperately need.
On World Suicide Prevention Day, we reflect on what we must do to make a real difference. We can achieve that by ending the silence, funding the services and treating mental health with the urgency that it demands. That is how we will finally change the narrative, and that is how we will save lives.
The Minister for Social Care (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), whose leadership on the issue since she joined the House has been second to none. We are all extremely grateful to her.
As colleagues will understand, this debate must conclude at 11.30 am. I will do my best to make some remarks today on behalf of the Government, but I assure hon. Members that I have taken a note of all their contributions today and will relay them to the teams working on the mental health strategy. I hope that colleagues know that my door is always open to those who want to influence the forthcoming mental health strategy, particularly on this issue. I look forward to working with them all.
Every life lost to suicide is one life too many. That is why ensuring that fewer lives are lost to suicide is a priority, as my hon. Friend says. As we come together to discuss World Suicide Prevention Day, I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England. We have already made important progress, from improving our ability to detect emerging trends through near real-time surveillance to strengthening suicide prevention practice across services and investing in targeted support for those groups that are most at risk, which several hon. Members have mentioned and which is clearly very important.
The theme of World Suicide Prevention Day is changing the narrative. That provides us with the opportunity to reflect on how to approach suicide prevention, and it challenges us to do more to prevent suicide. We want a society in which people feel able and safe to discuss their mental health, as hon. Members have done—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who made an important contribution about his own mental health. We want people to be supported to express their experience of suicidal thoughts and to seek help. Mental health support has a vital role to play in that.
The 10-year health plan set out a bold ambition—to reform the NHS and to change the way mental health support is provided, investing £343 million in capital funding to make that change—but we need to go further. That is why we are developing a cross-Government mental health strategy for England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned, I am relatively new to this role. It is good to be the Minister of State for mental health; although I am new to the Department of Health and Social Care, hon. Members will know that I am not new to this issue, and particularly not to the impact of mental health on getting people into work and moving on, so I am looking forward to hitting the ground running with colleagues.
The strategy will aim to transform mental health care into a system that responds earlier and helps people to stay active and participating, which we know is so important preventively and for good mental health. Like the suicide prevention strategy, it will look beyond the NHS and will consider the role of schools, workplaces and the voluntary sector, for all the reasons that colleagues have mentioned. We need to meet people where they are.
Suicide is complicated. There are a range of factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address. The suicide prevention strategy identifies evidence-based factors, including financial difficulty, substance misuse, harmful gambling—a topic that I personally feel very passionate about—domestic abuse, physical illness, social isolation and loneliness. Many of those risk factors are closely linked to wider health inequalities. This is a complicated subject.
Opportunities to prevent suicide do not exist solely within mental health services. Three quarters of people who die by suicide are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but are in contact with other services and other support systems. We must make the most of those opportunities. Earlier this year, for example, my ministerial colleague Baroness Merron, alongside the brilliant charity Money and Mental Health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services to discuss the role that they can play in supporting people—both customers and employees—who are at risk of suicide. That is the kind of approach that we need to model. We will identify and maximise opportunities to make sure that every person who requires support can readily get help in their community, as colleagues have asked, as a principle that should underpin our approach.
Colleagues have mentioned the impact on men. It is so important that we recognise that, particularly with middle-aged men at risk of suicide, who might need support from multiple services; colleagues will be aware of the men’s health strategy that we announced recently.
I will end by briefly mentioning the work of the Premier League. I know only too well that football gets men talking. I am so proud that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned, we have taken the opportunity to make the national game a place that helps people to open up and talk. I say: more of that!
Question put and agreed to.
Conflict in Sudan
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the conflict in Sudan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am pleased to have secured this debate, because it comes at a critical moment. The war in Sudan is now entering its fourth year. It has been labelled the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, yet for some reason it still barely registers in political discourse. Last week, a humanitarian convoy delivering lifesaving aid to Kadugli, where communities are at risk of famine, was attacked. A UN report has found that sexual violence is widespread and is being used as a weapon of war in Sudan, and that at least 13 victims have died, mostly after brutal gang rapes, with the youngest victim only nine years old.
For millions of Sudanese people, the war is a daily struggle for survival. I suspect that many people in this country could not explain why a paramilitary force operating in Sudan stands accused of genocide. The gap between the scale of what is happening and the attention that it receives is part of the reason why it has been allowed to go on for so long. Just now, I was listening to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on the banning of Israeli goods that come from illegal settlements. The main Chamber was packed, and rightly so, but I would argue that the crisis in Sudan requires the same attention.
The United Nations puts the number of people in Sudan who need humanitarian assistance this year at 33.7 million, which is more than in any other country on earth. There are 90 million people displaced inside Sudan, and more than 4 million have left it entirely, which is equivalent to the population of Greater Manchester. More areas are in or at risk of famine than anywhere else in the world. However, the UN’s own response plan for Sudan is funded at only 40% of what is needed this year. That shortfall already has a body count: hospitals in Darfur have closed for want of money to keep them running, cutting off tens of thousands of displaced people from anything resembling care.
During the summer recess, I took part in a parliamentary delegation to Egypt, where I saw at first hand the impact of Sudan’s conflict on the region. My visit brought it home to me that this is a regional crisis—one that cannot be contained within Sudan’s borders.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is absolutely right that it is a timely moment. The quintet is to make a good-offices visit to Khartoum from tomorrow. Does she agree, first, that the UK Government have to continue supporting the diplomatic work of the quintet and, secondly, that the Government will continue to make a difference by sanctioning those individuals involved in facilitating this dreadful civil war?
Naushabah Khan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I urge the Government to listen to his comments and to continue to place that pressure.
Egypt is the single largest host of people fleeing the conflict, with about 1.5 million refugees, which places significant pressure on communities and services already stretched thin. At a UNHCR registration centre, I heard directly from Sudanese refugees, including elderly women and young children, some of whom had travelled roughly 1,400 km from the Sudanese border just to register—the same distance as from London to Rome. Their journeys underscore the human reality of displacement. They are not just another statistic; they are families who walked away from everything they owned, because staying had become more dangerous than leaving.
Egypt has played a prominent role in stabilising the region, but its ability to manage the crisis alone is reaching breaking point. The question for Britain is not just how much we spend on humanitarian assistance, but whether our support reaches people where they are and where the need is greatest. The registration centre I visited is facing immense pressure: some 4,000 refugees a day against capacity built for 4,000 a month. UNHCR’s Egypt operation has a funding requirement of $133.5 million for 2026, but was only a quarter funded by the end of April, leaving a gap of more than $99 million. That operation is currently receiving no UK funding at all, despite the UK’s own record showing what effective support can achieve. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office-funded North Africa migrant and development project, delivered through the International Organisation for Migration, has reached more than 22,000 migrants and host community members in Egypt since 2024.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I was pleased and privileged to join my hon. Friend on the delegation to Egypt. At the event at which we met Sudanese refugees, what most struck me was the scale of medical need. Almost every participant at the roundtable was in need of a doctor or medical support, or had family similarly in need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the aid we are providing to the conflict is not just about what is happening in Sudan, but about the people who leave Sudan for Egypt and elsewhere, and the medical need that they have in those countries?
Naushabah Khan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The medical challenge that people were facing came across strongly in our conversations. We must ensure that aid reaches the right people in the right place in the right way. That point cut through; I hope others will listen to it.
Alongside our humanitarian duty, this matters to Britain because the consequences of Sudan’s war are already being felt across the region and beyond. With little prospect of peace or self-reliance in Sudan or the countries hosting its refugees, more people are being forced into dangerous onward journeys towards Europe. Between 2024 and 2025, the number of Sudanese refugees arriving in Europe rose by 232%. In 2025, Sudanese nationals made up 11% of small boat arrivals to the United Kingdom. Funding refugee protection, registration and support for host communities is the right thing to do. It is also how we prevent further displacement and exploitation and stop people being forced to make these journeys later.
But funding is only part of the answer. Aid can mitigate the consequences of the conflict, but it cannot end it. However well the registration centre I visited with colleagues is funded, it will still be processing the consequences of decisions made by armed men many hundreds of miles away. Only a political solution can resolve that.
The war did not begin as, and has never really been, a contest between two equally matched armies with equally clean records. The Rapid Support Forces are the direct descendants of the Janjaweed militia responsible for the Darfur genocide of the early 2000s, absorbed into the Sudanese state rather than disbanded. When fighting broke out between the force and the regular army in April 2023, it inherited the old militia’s methods along with its personnel. The United Nations fact-finding mission concluded in February this year that the killing of civilians in El Fasher after the city fell to the Rapid Support Forces last October met the legal definition of genocide. Tonight, in a city called El Obeid, the same force is massing outside the walls in very much the configuration that it used in El Fasher. The United States Department of State has already warned that mass atrocities may follow if El Obeid falls too.
I want to be clear that the responsibility is not one-sided. Sudan’s regular army has bombed populated areas indiscriminately, and militias fighting alongside it have carried out abuses of their own territory that they have retaken, but there is a difference between that record and what happened at El Fasher. That difference is exactly why the two sides cannot simply be told to agree a ceasefire and be trusted to keep it
I raise that history because it explains why calls for a ceasefire keep failing. It is not a dispute that ends with both sides simply agreeing to stop. It also explains why the international effort to end this war has gone almost nowhere. The Quad—the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—published a peace road map almost a year ago. It has achieved almost nothing, because Saudi Arabia and Egypt want the Sudanese army preserved as the backbone of the state, while the UAE wants its political role dismantled. Those positions were never reconciled, only written around, and Sudan’s own Government formally rejected the road map at the Security Council in February. That rejection barely registered here.
Nor is the damage confined to Sudan and Egypt. Chad has closed its borders, after cross-border drone attacks killed its own soldiers. Fighting has spread into Ethiopian territory around the Blue Nile. While the world’s attention is elsewhere, Russia has been negotiating a 25-year naval facility at Port Sudan in exchange for weapons—a foothold on one of the most consequential trade corridors on earth, secured while the country hosting it burns.
A war that we are content to fund our way around rather than to resolve is a war that keeps generating problems that Britain will eventually have to deal with on someone else’s terms. As the penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council, the UK has significant diplomatic leverage. The Government must use it, maintaining pressure for humanitarian troops, for civilian protection, for unimpeded humanitarian access and for a civilian-led political process, including through the Berlin principles agreed earlier this year.
That leverage will carry more weight if we are not undercut by our own arms licensing decisions. Evidence from United Nations experts and from Amnesty International has repeatedly linked the United Arab Emirates to weapons reaching the Rapid Support Forces. Hundreds of millions of pounds of UK arms licences to the UAE have been approved during this war. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that those licences are being tested properly against the risk that British-made equipment will end up fuelling, however indirectly, the same conflict that we are asking the Security Council to end.
I also urge the Government to reaffirm the commitment they made earlier this year to the UK’s £146 million of humanitarian funding for Sudan, while extending meaningful funding to organisations on the ground, including for the UNHCR’s work with refugees in neighbouring countries, rather than focusing solely on Sudan itself. Britain has both the means and the diplomatic standing to act. We can help to ensure that people displaced by this war receive the protection and support that they need, while using our influence to address the conflict that forced them from their homes in the first place. Many of them want to return to their home: I heard that loud and clear.
I think of the women I met at the registration centre who had walked 1,400 km simply to queue in the baking heat, just to be counted. The least this House can do is make sure that they are not forgotten, and the least that our Government can do is recognise the scale and impact of this humanitarian crisis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. If Members can stick to five minutes each, it will be much appreciated: that will enable everyone to speak.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), not just for her thoughtful contribution but for securing this debate.
It is so important that we take every opportunity we can to shine a light on this conflict. The International Development Committee, of which I am a member, has relentlessly sought to bring forward evidence to enable discussion of the issue, but we have failed to get the widespread coverage and attention that it most certainly deserves. I recognise the focus that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), brought to the conflict during her time in office; the same applies to the former development Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am sure that the new Minister, whom I welcome to her post, will do likewise. Nevertheless, as I said, Sudan remains chronically under-reported.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development, I want to focus most of my remarks on the appalling reality of hunger and acute malnutrition, which represent some of the most brutal consequences of the ongoing conflict. Famine conditions are no longer a distant warning; they are an already present reality. Acute malnutrition among children under five and breastfeeding mothers is projected to surge from 3.7 million last year to nearly 4.2 million in 2026. Furthermore, Save the Children estimates that cases of severe acute malnutrition will rise by a further 4% to a devastating 800,000.
We saw the horrific realities of the crisis just two weeks ago with the totally unacceptable attack on a World Food Programme convoy in Kordofan. Civilian personnel were injured and lifesaving aid was destroyed. Aid has become a weapon in this conflict, so I urge the Minister to continue to exert every possible diplomatic lever to ensure that El Obeid does not suffer the same fate as El Fasher, where starvation was used as a weapon of war, with local food supply chains systematically targeted in preparation for the siege and eventual massacre.
I recognise that the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must navigate delicate regional dynamics, but the Government must not shy away from forcefully challenging the covert actions of some of our Gulf allies in Sudan, both publicly and in private diplomacy. That would be totally consistent with the statement earlier in the House of Commons about elsewhere in the middle east.
Crucially, as I understand it, the UN arms embargo is due to expire, so the UK must act. The United States has rightly called for its expansion and extension. As UN Security Council penholder, the UK has a distinct moral and diplomatic duty to lead these negotiations at the upcoming UN General Assembly and press relentlessly for a humanitarian truce, a permanent ceasefire, robust civilian protection, civic engagement and unhindered aid access.
This war has created the largest forced displacement crisis on the planet. Egypt alone is currently hosting some 1.5 million refugees fleeing from the violence. Compounding that, severe El Niño weather events now threaten fragile food supply chains across east Africa, with UNICEF warning of intensifying drought, extreme heat and flooding that will further afflict vulnerable children. Our humanitarian response must be prioritised to mitigate that environmental pressure and include renewed efforts to secure a stable, civilian-led peace in accordance with the Berlin principles.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need for a humanitarian response. Does he agree that that can have an impact only if it is internationally co-ordinated? The scale of the catastrophe in Sudan is such that anything less that will be a piecemeal gesture.
David Mundell
I absolutely agree. I—and the Minister, I am sure—would like the Quad that was established to be more effective in relation to the involvement of the United States and neighbouring countries, with those neighbouring countries playing a positive role rather than supporting the protagonists in the conflict. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East has previously said, the greater involvement of the African Union would be most welcome, but that has not really developed.
We are deluding ourselves if we believe that the consequences of the conflict can be contained in Sudan and neighbouring countries. Displacement will not stop at Egypt, particularly given that the camps are under pressure. Failing to properly support host countries and to address the conflict will ensure that the pressures are delivered closer to home, so it is totally in our interests to resolve the conflict. We must do everything we can to achieve that.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing this debate, and to all hon. Members here for doing exactly what my hon. Friend said was needed: shine a light on the human catastrophe affecting Sudan and its people, in the midst of a war on civilians, human rights, children and women.
We have already heard some really disturbing statistics. Look at the number of people—8.6 million; I added it up this morning—who have been displaced throughout Sudan. It is the same as the populations of Scotland, Manchester and Bristol put together. Those people have been forced from their homes because of appalling violence and have to attempt to scrape a life together elsewhere. Of course, up to 4 million people who have had to flee Sudan are based in other countries. It is good to hear that colleagues met some of those refugees in Egypt; I met some of them in Chad. Their horrific stories will never leave me.
I want to focus my remarks on some concerning recent developments as it is important to put them on the record. I will then ask some questions of the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place; I am pleased to see her. First, as has been said, it is concerning to see that the conflict is certainly not abating. El Obeid is being encircled, as previous speakers have eloquently pointed out. There is renewed fighting in Blue Nile province and acute insecurity in the Nuba mountains. In many parts of Sudan, there is also cholera and dengue. In many ways, the humanitarian situation is getting worse.
Secondly, since we last discussed the issue in the House, there has been an even greater use of drones in Sudan, including double-tap attacks in which, following one attack, those trying to rescue the injured are killed too. That is being done by not just one belligerent but all of them. One example took place on 20 March, when there was a big drone attack on El-Daein teaching hospital in east Darfur, a Rapid Support Forces-controlled area. On the same day in Al Dabbah in Northern state, there was an attack in an area controlled by the Sudanese armed forces, which affected electricity infrastructure. Both attacks killed civilians and affected critical infrastructure.
Thirdly, it is concerning that restrictions on aid are becoming normalised in Sudan. We have already had a bit of a discussion about the involvement of the international community. It is important to underline that what both the SAF and the RSF are doing—forcing non-governmental organisations to register with them and saying, effectively, that they are not allowed to provide lifesaving support to the other side—is obviously using aid as a weapon of war. That is appalling, and it effectively requires NGOs to choose which group of starving people they want to serve.
Finally, there has been really poor rainfall so far this year, and it looks like that will make the food insecurity situation even worse. As has been mentioned, the crisis can feel far away, but it does not feel like that when we speak to people in our constituencies with families suffering in Sudan. Furthermore, we are seeing the consequences on our shores, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham.
Let me put the issue into perspective. The Sudanese now make up the largest category of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children trying to come into our country. They are also the second most numerous nationality, after Eritreans, in small boat arrivals. An enormous population movement is clearly happening because of the war on civilians in Sudan.
I have several questions for the Minister. First, recent attempts by the US to achieve an arms embargo on all of Sudan—not just the one already in place in Darfur—have been blocked by Russia, which claims that the conflict is completely one-sided. Will the Minister let us know what the UK is doing to support the US in that important call, and particularly in highlighting the appallingly destructive impact of cheap and readily available drones on civilians? Secondly, I welcome the UK’s sanctions on those exploiting gold and using it to support the belligerents in Sudan, but what more can be done? Does the Minister have a date yet for the illicit finance summit that is meant to happen later this year? Will it cover Sudanese gold? It would be useful to hear about that. Thirdly, will the UK push for a credible investigation of the allegations of chemical weapons use that we have heard in relation to Sudan? Finally, has the issue of the involvement of neighbouring countries been raised by the Foreign Secretary with the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries engaged in the conflict?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for setting the scene incredibly well. She was right to recognise the importance of the debate. Its importance is equal—I say this with great respect—to that of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which is currently being debated in the main Chamber. The impact of the conflict in Sudan is even greater, given the number of people affected. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak specifically about the conflict’s devastating impact on freedom of religion and belief.
I always try to start with a verse of scripture, because for me that underlines the moral weight of what we are discussing. Proverbs 31:8 instructs us:
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
In this Chamber, we are a voice for the voiceless. That is precisely what this debate asks us to do: to be the spokespeople in this Chamber for the Sudanese people.
Let us be clear from the outset: the situation in Sudan is not simply a conventional campaign of religious persecution. Since fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces erupted in April 2023, state authority has fragmented catastrophically. Armed groups operate with widespread immunity. Religious minorities have become acutely and disproportionately vulnerable in the chaos that has followed. It would be misleading, of course, to characterise the situation solely as one side persecuting Christians because both armed factions have attacked places of worship and terrorised communities of faith. The stats illustrate the scale of that. The Open Doors 2026 world watch list ranked Sudan fourth in the world for Christian persecution, with a score of 92 out of 100—the highest ever recorded for Sudan. That tells you what is happening in Sudan.
I am going to speak about the persecution. Approximately 2.2 million Christians, around 4.3% of the population, remain in Sudan. Some 23 Christians have been killed for faith-related reasons and around 100 churches or Christian buildings have been attacked or closed. In December 2024, RSF soldiers attacked a Church of Christ congregation during a Christmas prayer service in Al-Hasaheisa, forcing out some 177 worshippers, assaulting at least 14 people and looting the building. That is not collateral damage; it is targeted religious terror—that is how it must be categorised.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I must reiterate that freedom of religion or belief must mean freedom for all. Muslims, too, are victims. In September 2025, an RSF attack on a mosque in El Fasher during dawn prayers killed more than 80 worshippers. Mosques have been damaged and destroyed alongside churches. Baha’is, Shi’a Muslims and other small communities are equally exposed when institutional protection collapses entirely. That is what has happened in Sudan: protection is not there for anybody at this moment in time.
What makes its deterioration particularly grievous is that at one time Sudan was moving in a better direction. Following Omar al-Bashir’s removal in 2019, Sudan abolished the death penalty for apostasy and began to remove sharia law as a constitutional basis for legislation. Those were genuinely encouraging developments; in 2019 things did seem brighter, if only for a short time. The October 2021 coup halted that progress and the 2023 civil war has now swept away most of what remained of institutional religious protection—it has all gone away in some seven years.
We must encourage the Secretary of State to address three specific points. First, what representations is His Majesty’s Government making to ensure that FORB protections are explicitly incorporated into any future constitutional settlement in Sudan, preserving and building on the reforms of 2019 to 2020?
Secondly, what steps are being taken to document the attacks on religious infrastructure by both armed factions and raise them with international partners? I congratulate the Minister on her performance in the Chamber today; it was certainly strong, and I look forward to a similar response to the questions that we put forward here. I would like there to be accountability for those who have carried out terrible atrocities in Sudan. Is a process taking place to ensure that those who carried out heinous crimes—the hon. Lady for Gillingham and Rainham referred to a nine-year-old child being abused and raped by these monsters—have accountability?
Thirdly, will the Government commit to ensuring that humanitarian assistance reaches displaced religious minority communities who face discrimination even in accessing aid? There is no fairness in how aid is processed.
In conclusion, any influence that we have can and must be used to help the people for whom persecution has become a fact of life. That is a fact that we can never accept.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing this important debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place.
Sudan is now in its fourth year of conflict—four years of violence, displacement and starvation. Up to 400,000 people have been killed in a war that has displaced more than 14 million people and left 34 million—two thirds of the population—in need of humanitarian support. Behind those numbers are people’s lives, stories and unimaginable trauma and grief—a family forced to flee their generational home, a child suffering from malnutrition, a woman, girl or baby who has survived sexual violence or who has died because of sexual violence.
Those are some of the stories that my Barking constituents have shared with me. I have spoken to constituents with family links to Sudan, who fear for their loved ones. Others are horrified by the events and the international complacency. Sudan needs an immediate ceasefire and aid. That is why I support the Government’s efforts to keep the Sudan conflict high on the international agenda. I commend the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), for all her efforts, and in particular for chairing a special session at the UN Security Council in February that focused entirely on Sudan. She placed the importance of women’s rights at the top of the agenda. In Sudan, it is women and children who have been disproportionately impacted.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis and, like my hon. Friend, I have constituents who are deeply concerned, including Sandra in Queen’s Park, Gemma in East Cliff and Springbourne and Colleen in Muscliff and Strouden Park. I have heard constituents’ concern about a report in The Guardian on 7 September about women and girls fleeing from the brutal civil war to Egypt, where they thought they would find safety, but they have fallen prey to sexual abuse and exploitation. Does she agree that women and girls are suffering in Sudan, but they are also suffering in places where they should be finding safety?
Nesil Caliskan
My hon. Friend makes an important point and underlines the vulnerability that women and girls face across the world. Indeed, a staggering one in four Sudanese people are at risk of sexual violence, and women and girls are disproportionately impacted. In the UN report into the siege of El Fasher, one woman described being raped
“in front of the bodies of my mother, my father and my slaughtered brother.”
I cannot imagine the fear that Sudanese women feel every day. Will the Minister confirm that the £20 million programme to support victims of rape will continue?
In an unstable world where there is humanitarian suffering beyond comprehension, we too often feel forced to consider which crisis we care about the most. The truth is that humanity and compassion have no boundaries; they are not diluted by proximity, ethnicity or religion. There is no hierarchy of humanitarian suffering that we should be outraged about. Indeed, my constituents frequently express to me their deep frustration that the media and Government do not shine a brighter light on what is going on in Sudan.
More than just talking about the appalling situation in Sudan, we need the UK Government to take action. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will continue its arms embargo and sanctions regime until there is a ceasefire in Sudan? In July, sanctions were introduced against a further 11 individuals and organisations. The individuals and organisations on that list reveal a glimmer of the web of dark money and corporate interests that are exploiting this conflict for their own greed. Commercial brokers, real estate management companies, capital holding corporations, mining companies—the list goes on. All those organisations and individuals have blood on their hands.
Sanctioning individuals is not enough while the arms keep flowing. The UN independent international fact-finding mission for Sudan found reasonable grounds to believe that there is a transnational network running through companies and intermediaries in the UAE. Will the Minister say what the UK is doing, and what more it can do bilaterally and through the UN Security Council, specifically to press the UAE regarding these credible and mounting allegations? In the light of the allegations, will the Government review UK arms licensing arrangements with the UAE? I appreciate that she cannot go into detail about any further sanctions that the Government might be considering, but can she reassure us that that work is under way?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham again for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have participated for their powerful speeches. Finally, I ask the Government to take more action to stop the genocide in Sudan, to support a ceasefire and to help the Sudanese people to find their future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Dr Allin-Khan, to serve with you in the Chair for this vital debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) on securing it.
It is a sad fact of life in Parliament that we have not debated this issue enough, including on the Floor of the House of Commons, because the death toll in Sudan dwarfs anything else that is going on around the world at the moment, despite the amount of time that we spend discussing issues other than this one. I absolutely agree with the figures that the hon. Lady cited about the terrible death toll in Sudan, which is something in the order of 400,000, yet I suspect that even that is an underestimate. If it is, perhaps between 1 million and 1.5 million people in Sudan have been killed or wounded just in the direct conflict. Then, of course, there are all the people who have been displaced; she also gave those figures and I absolutely agree with them, too.
Today, I will focus on following the money, because it seems to me that if we were to stop the money, we would stop the war. In particular, I will focus on the role of the UAE in all of this, which I think is an abomination. Frankly, the UAE’s Administration is a disgraceful one anyway, and I will go on to say why.
It is now absolutely clear, from the work of the prominent human rights organisations and many media outlets that have conducted investigations into RSF fighters, that those fighters are using weapons supplied by the UAE. If not manufactured in the UAE, the weapons are certainly re-exported to them on a regular basis and in vast numbers, along with ammunition.
Furthermore, Colombian mercenaries have arrived in Sudan, who were no doubt recruited from an organisation that is very close to the leadership of the UAE. In September 2025, the Government of Sudan estimated that the number of Colombian mercenaries in Sudan was getting on for 500, but other estimates suggest that the real number is between 1,500 and 2,000, and growing.
We believe that that is the direct result of what has been happening in the UAE. The Global Security Services Group is the organisation contracted to hire those people, and it is also involved in the supply of weapons. The GSSG is owned by an Emirati businessman, Mohamed Hamdan Alzaabi, who has business interests in security firms jointly with Ahmed Mohamed Al Hameeri, the secretary-general of the UAE’s Presidential Court. The links to what is going on in Sudan have been very clearly established. GSSG continues to be closely tied to the Government of the UAE. Its website states that it is the preferred security provider for the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Presidential Affairs, and there is evidence that two military bases in Abu Dhabi were used as training facilities for mercenaries—the list goes on.
My question to the UK Government is this: why in heaven’s name are we not sanctioning key operatives in the UAE now? I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and I say that it is high time that we imposed sanctions on those key UAE operatives.
We can also look at the links back to Sheikh Mansour, who has well-documented ties with the leader of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, and has even been described as Hamdan Dagalo’s closest ally in the UAE. In March 2023, Premier League clubs, apparently unanimously, that they would not allow individuals involved in human rights abuses to own clubs, yet Mansour is still in charge of Manchester City. The question is, why, and why are the Government so determined not to pursue these individuals? I suspect that the reason involves a lot of money in investments and the ownership of football teams, but that should not stop the Government from pursuing these people, because the UAE would be very suspect in that.
Even if that were not enough, the UAE is involved in the most appalling abuse. British citizen Ryan Cornelius has spent 18 years incarcerated, even though the UN has claimed that that is completely wrong and unjudicial and that he should be released. The Abu Dhabi bank has continued to pursue him, and he has not seen his family for close on 19 years now. He is a British citizen, but how often have representatives of successive Governments, when they have visited the UAE, named him or said anything about him? The answer is “Very rarely.” All they do is tokenistically raise the issue and move on, as they pursue more money.
We know that Mohammed Ibrahim al-Shaibani, who is the chair of the Dubai Islamic bank and head of the Dubai Ruler’s Court, is responsible for Ryan’s detention for 18 years and is very close to the leadership of UAE. It is time that we cracked down on this organisation and showed it to be the pariah that it is. It is behind all that is going on in Sudan and the abuses of British citizens who should be released. Unless the Government are prepared to step up, sanction key individuals, and prevent them from owning football teams, investing in the United Kingdom and enjoying their shopping trips here, we will not be the nation that we should be.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) on securing such an important debate.
As we think about the displacement and destitution, the hunger, the rape and the violence in everyday stories of this forgotten war in Sudan, which is destroying a nation, ripping it apart and fuelling the greatest humanitarian disaster on our planet, we know we have to step up our focus and our action in this place. Although I welcome all the contributions of hon. Members to this debate, the amount of attention that the House gives to this disaster is still insufficient.
When we think about the fact that 33.7 million of the Sudanese population are in need of humanitarian assistance, 13 million have been displaced, 19.5 million are at levels of food insecurity and need urgent attention, and there are 8 million children who are not in the safety of school every day, getting their education, which will fuel challenges for the future too, it is so urgent that we find a path to move beyond these atrocities. Yet it feels like actors cannot see beyond the desire to gain ground, destroy lives and property, and kill any hope.
The Sudan war is a proxy for external actors, and that is what demands our urgent attention. We must use all the leverage we have to stop fuelling the conflict, not least by addressing the behaviours of countries such as the UAE and, at times, Egypt too. The conflict is moving beyond traditional warfare; we are now seeing extensive drone use, mercenaries being brought from Colombia, and the exchange of money too. We also know that Russia has its own interests in weapons and gold.
We must look at the minimal interest in Sudan and the developments in Port Sudan at this time. In fighting this proxy war, we need to ensure there is proper global accountability, which seems so lacking from our systems. In our tinderbox of geopolitical fragility, where domestic politics sucks our attention, we need to find the capacity in Government to provide the leadership that is necessary and the resolutions that are so urgent. We must match those with commitments to provide aid at scale and to use the political capital that we can bring.
In recent years, we have witnessed new approaches. In the assault on El Fasher in particular, we saw the systematic raping of women, the burning of people and places, and the escalation in the next chapter of the civil war that has raged since April 2023.
Last year in London, and this year in Berlin, the UK and other actors brought people together to break the deadlock, yet the fruit of those efforts has been so small. We need to look more widely at our infrastructure for addressing conflict. I welcome steps taken by the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), to address the issue of women in conflict, and particularly the investment for those who have experienced sexual harm as a result of the conflict. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in that area, how that money has been spent and its impact to date?
As we see increasing brutalisation in war, we have to focus even more on how we use international law to hold actors to account, and on the pace of that process, because it takes forever and a day to bring people to account. We also need a different vision for how we build diplomacy, whether that is a focus on the post-conflict opportunity of trade, on reciprocity in co-operation, on security and stability, or on where we can use pragmatism and protection to build rules and rights. We must take the seeds of London and the shoots of Berlin so that they grow into a settlement that works for people on the ground in Sudan.
Will the Minister also look at the role of civil society? Up to 2023, civil society played a major role in maintaining stability in Sudan. Being able to work with local leaders is crucial to increasing their opportunity to build the bridges that are necessary to de-escalate the risks we see. How are we not only investing but inspiring community organisations and actors to use their accountability and creative diplomacy, and how are we providing the necessary support that they need to build for the future?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing the debate.
Sudan now faces the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, largest hunger crisis and biggest internal displacement crisis. History has taught us that war always drains resources into armed conflict, instead of directing them towards manufacturing, development and raising people’s living standards. The war is a counter-revolutionary conflict between two military factions that has left Sudan’s infrastructure largely destroyed. Sudan’s agriculture, industry and domestic and foreign trade have all been severely disrupted, with approximately 13 million people displaced, 19.5 million people facing acute food insecurity and hundreds of thousands of people living in famine conditions.
As well as the war, there have been years of failed politics, a lack of development, a weakening of production and widespread corruption. This has all led to the collapse of state institutions, mass unemployment and intense poverty. According to the latest estimates from Sudan’s Central Bureau of Statistics, 82.8% of the population now live below the poverty line. The war has created an economy in which military interests, commercial networks and smuggling converge, for which both sides bear responsibility. Both sides are using gold, once a national resource, for financing. The revenues are used to purchase weapons, ammunition, drones and other military supplies. Sudan’s gold production reached 70.15 tonnes in 2025, while officially recorded exports amounted only to approximately 14 tonnes, so 56 tonnes of gold did not enter official channels through the Bank of Sudan.
The war is being used to pass highly questionable agreements on projects with international capital, and with countries that have appalling human rights records. That has far-reaching economic investment and strategic consequences. For example, the Sudanese-Saudi co-ordination council operates away from the gaze of public scrutiny and grants long-term economic investment and strategic concessions involving land, agriculture, ports and other natural resources. Only last year, the Sudanese Foreign Minister confirmed that a final understanding had been reached that would see a Russian naval base on the Red sea, with up to 300 Russian personnel and four warships.
Collectively, the international community must try to bring this war to an end, guarantee humanitarian access, press all parties for safe, unhindered aid delivery to every part of Sudan through all available channels, and back efforts to prevent famine. The arms pipeline should be cut off, with the UK actively monitoring and using every available measure to end foreign military support to the warring factions, including the UAE’s support to the RSF, and UN Security Council resolution 1556 should be enforced.
There must be accountability, not impunity. The UK should support independent monitoring, documentation and prosecution in respect of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by all perpetrators. There should be a democratic, Sudanese-led civilian transition, with the UK backing a genuinely inclusive process that excludes the warring parties and the former regime, with no return to power sharing with the military, and the introduction of a single national army under civilian oversight.
The decisive factor here is internal. The resistance committees, the trade unions and the displaced people’s committees should help to shape Sudan’s future, with the UK and wider international community supporting democratic forces on the ground and backing bottom-up participation and leadership that leads to sovereignty and the reconstruction of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Sudan.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for raising the subject, which we should be talking about much more, and welcome the Minister to her place. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG for Sudan and South Sudan, and I refer to a trip undertaken with Action Against Hunger to the Chad-Sudan border to witness the impact of the conflict.
I can rehearse the lines I have said over and over again during my time in the House to a range of Ministers: the world has failed Sudan, and the UK must do much more to bring about an end to the conflict and to the largest humanitarian crisis in the world today. In June, with the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), I wrote to the former Prime Minister urging him to use his last hours in office to act to end the escalating crisis in El Obeid, which is at real risk of levels of violence against civilians similar to the El Fasher massacre in 2025. I did not receive a response.
Over the summer, El Obeid has seen thousands of people arriving in search of shelter. Foreign Ministers, including here in the UK, have made welcome statements calling for de-escalation and for the warring parties to uphold international humanitarian law, but the situation there continues to worsen. It is emblematic of the situation in Sudan today.
In May, colleagues and I visited Chad’s border with Sudan. We found a humanitarian response operating under extraordinary pressure. The town of Adré, which once had a population of 40,000, now hosts an estimated 240,000 people. Chad now hosts more than 1.5 million refugees, the majority of them from Sudan. Chad is one of the poorest countries in the world and is sharing scarce water, land and services with a vast refugee population. But as the humanitarian actors we met on our trip told us continually, the needs far outweigh the resources they have to respond.
Anneliese Dodds
Like the hon. Lady, I went on that trip—I declare an interest exactly as she expressed it. She talks about the hard work of humanitarian organisations; does she agree that those who received support were very grateful for it, as they kept saying to us, but were really concerned about what would happen in the future, and had already seen a reduction in that support?
Monica Harding
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. The overall funding to Chad for the humanitarian response had fallen to 27%. That meant that in the refugee camps we visited, food was being rationed—it may have been every other week or every other month that they were missing food parcels—and the refugees were extremely worried about what would happen.
We Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of £146 million of new funds for frontline aid workers to support Sudan, but the Government’s aid cuts have diminished our ability to respond to humanitarian crises and honour our international commitments. I remind the Minister that the 0.7% aid budget was a commitment that the House legislated for, and that we continue to wait for a timetable to return to 0.7%.
Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. I recently met representatives of the independent UN fact-finding mission for Sudan. Their latest report was just released and makes for tough reading, concluding that external support is sustaining and expanding the military capabilities of the SAF and RSF, particularly their drone capability; that transnational networks are supplying the RSF with
“weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel”;
and that the SAF is using foreign-supplied drones that harm civilians.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) referred to the influence of Russia. The Wagner Group in particular seems to be in the background, training and exploiting the reserves, gold and minerals in Sudan at the same time as being involved in atrocities against women, children and all the people in Sudan. Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to looking for culprits, Russia is at the top of the list?
Monica Harding
Absolutely. China, Russia and so many other countries are involved in the crisis.
I welcome yesterday’s statement by the UK on behalf of the coalition for atrocity prevention and justice in Sudan, which called for a stop to the continued illegal flow of weapons, but when will the UK call out the countries doing it? I have pressed and pressed successive Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, and they continually refuse to call out the UAE in particular for its widely reported bloody role in the conflict. When will they do so, and when will they take consequential action for their hand in it? Will arms licences to the named countries be reviewed and halted in the light of the reports?
With the current arms embargo on the Darfur region up for renewal at the end of this week, will the UK push for a Sudan-wide arms embargo, something that even the USA is now calling for? Will the Government use the UK’s role as UN Security Council penholder on Sudan to advance efforts to secure a ceasefire? The current road map is unrealistic; how will the Government propose a realistic de-escalation? What about the sanctions on those at the heart of the conflict? Will the Government widen the scope of their sanctions regime to ensure that those driving the conflict face further restrictions?
In Chad, I met women so traumatised by what they had experienced that their eyes were dead. Some could not speak. Those who did told us harrowing tales of rape and murder on their way across Sudan to Chad. One lady had witnessed nine male members of her family being murdered. One lady had just arrived at the border into the care of the UN with two children, aged five and seven. She had taken five months to get there, by herself, from El Fasher. Those roads are dangerous. How will the Government work to secure the safety of civilians?
What about accountability? In the absence of reprisals, belligerents and their state backers are acting with impunity. Belligerents are using rape, starvation as a weapon of war, arbitrary detention, torture and retaliation against civilian populations. International NGOs are being silenced with the threat of their access being removed if they speak out, and the UNHCR does not even have the money to spend time with victims of unbelievable violence and diagnose what has occurred. We cannot seek accountability if we cannot fund the capacity to establish it, so will the Government review their financial commitment to Sudan and encourage other nations also to fill the void?
Will the Government commit to seeking to extend the mandate of the fact-finding mission? What conversations are being had about a peacekeeping force in Sudan, perhaps with the African Union, if only to state that the world is waking up to this conflict and that the belligerents are no longer able to act with impunity, thumbing their nose at international humanitarian law and the values of humanity itself?
The UK has a unique role to play in this conflict. I have just hotfooted it from the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Palestine, which I welcome. I applaud his assertion that
“It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world.”
He talked about
“a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.”
Does that apply to Sudan too?
Will the Government use every lever at their disposal to up the urgency and convince the international community to act to stop the bloodshed? For every child trapped in this terrible conflict, terrified right now, for every mother trying to protect her son, for every civilian caught up in the violence, for the humanitarian worker facing unbelievable risks, and for humanity’s sake, do more.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) on securing this important debate.
I am grateful to Members from across the House for their contributions—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who stressed the importance of keeping this topic on the agenda and under discussion in this place, and of sanctions. As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) brought huge knowledge and expertise to the debate, particularly about nutrition, and no debate is complete without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also welcome the new Minister to her place; I think this is the first time that we have met as Front Benchers in Westminster Hall.
The conflict in Sudan may not always receive the same attention in this country as other international crises, but the scale of human suffering is truly appalling. For more than three years, fighting between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces has devastated communities across the country. At least 150,000 people are estimated to have been killed, about 14 million people have been displaced, including 9 million within Sudan itself, and more than half the population is now acutely food insecure. Famine has been confirmed in multiple areas.
Behind each of those statistics are individuals and families whose lives have been torn apart. We have seen horrifying reports of attacks against civilians, widespread sexual violence, the destruction of essential infrastructure and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian assistance. Those responsible for atrocities must ultimately be held to account.
I want to use this opportunity to recognise the extraordinary work of humanitarian and Sudanese civil society organisations, which often operate in extremely dangerous circumstances to deliver assistance to those who desperately need it. The recent attack on a World Food Programme humanitarian convoy was another disturbing reminder of the risks faced by those who are simply trying to deliver lifesaving assistance. There is no justification for attacks on humanitarian workers or the deliberate obstruction of aid. The Government were therefore right to condemn the attack, but condemnation must be accompanied by consequences. Will the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of responsibility for the attacks on humanitarian operations? What action are they prepared to take against those responsible?
The regional consequences of this conflict also demand our attention. As we have heard, 4.5 million Sudanese people have fled to neighbouring countries. Chad and Egypt are carrying a particularly significant burden. Egypt alone hosts about 1.5 million Sudanese refugees. Without adequate protection, basic services and opportunities in neighbouring countries, vulnerable people face exploitation and are increasingly driven towards dangerous onward journeys.
The number of Sudanese refugees arriving in Europe rose sharply between 2024 and 2025, and Sudanese nationals accounted for 11% of small boat arrivals to the UK last year. This is therefore not just a humanitarian crisis. Continued instability in Sudan has serious consequences for regional stability and, ultimately, for our national security. We cannot afford to see a vast, ungoverned space emerge between the Sahel and the Red sea, in which hostile states, terrorist organisations and criminal networks are able to expand their influence.
There are already deeply concerning reports of external actors fuelling this war through weapons, financing and political support. Russia has sought influence with both sides while pursuing its own strategic interests, including access to Port Sudan and the Red sea. There are also long-standing and serious allegations about the supply of weapons to the RSF through regional networks. The Government must therefore be clear that those who finance, arm and prolong this conflict cannot expect to do so without consequences. We welcome the sanctions announced in July against individuals and entities linked to illicit gold networks and the financing and procurement structures supporting both the RSF and the SAF. Ministers, however, need to demonstrate that those measures are disrupting the networks sustaining the war rather than just identifying them.
The previous Conservative Government began sanctions against SAF and RSF-linked individuals and entities. We secured UN Security Council resolution 2736 demanding that the RSF halt its siege of El Fasher, and created the position of special envoy for the Red sea and horn of Africa. We repeatedly raised concerns about the role of illicit Sudanese gold and reports of external arms supplies.
I have a few questions for the Minister. What further sanctions are now being considered against those funding or arming the warring parties? What steps are being taken with international partners to disrupt the illicit gold networks that continue to finance the conflict? What conversations are Ministers having with regional partners about allegations that weapons continue to reach the parties through neighbouring states?
Ultimately, sanctions and humanitarian assistance can address some of the consequences of the war, but they cannot substitute for the political settlement that Sudan so desperately needs. There is no military solution to the conflict. The UK has an important responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan. We need to use that position assertively. We welcome the Berlin principles agreed earlier this year, including the commitment to an immediate humanitarian truce, a sustained ceasefire and, ultimately, a civilian-led political transition.
Principles on paper must now translate into progress on the ground. The Government have spoken about their efforts with international partners to broker a humanitarian truce; I hope that the Minister will update the House on precisely where those discussions now stand. What are the principal obstacles to securing that truce? What diplomatic engagement is taking place with external actors who possess influence over the parties? What is the Government’s assessment of the prospects for moving from a humanitarian truce to a permanent ceasefire and a credible, civilian-led political process? The voices of Sudanese civilians themselves must be central to that process, including the women, who have suffered so disproportionately during the conflict. The Berlin principles rightly recognise the importance of their meaningful participation.
Accountability must also remain at the heart of our approach. The evidence of atrocities committed during the conflict, including widespread sexual violence, is horrifying. The Government should set out what practical assistance Britain is providing for the collection and preservation of evidence, and how we are supporting the international mechanisms necessary to turn that evidence into prosecutions. I hope that the Minister will address specifically what support is being provided, including through Sudanese-led organisations operating on the ground, to women and girls who have survived sexual violence.
Britain has a long history of engagement in Sudan, and we retain diplomatic influence that should be used. The Government will have the support of the Opposition where they take effective action towards those objectives. However, after more than three years of war, Sudan needs more than statements of concern. It needs sustained diplomatic leadership, consequences for those prolonging the conflict, accountability for those responsible for atrocities and a credible pathway towards peace. I look forward to listening to the Minister demonstrate just how the UK intends to deliver exactly that.
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) for securing this important debate, and for her recent visit to Egypt, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee). As they will have both heard, the conflict in Sudan is one of the most devastating and—I would argue—defining conflicts of the 21st century.
For the millions of people living through it, the word “crisis” just does not do it justice. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham and others in the Chamber today for continuing to shine a light on this conflict, and I ask them to please pass on my sincere gratitude to all their constituents who have been in touch on this issue. It is incredibly inspiring to see their solidarity with people who they may never meet. I also want to pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and Baroness Chapman of Darlington, and the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), for their tireless efforts to strengthen the world’s response.
My message today is simple: the UK stands with the people of Sudan, and this Government, the Foreign Secretary and I stand with them too. We have heard powerfully from all the speakers today about the current situation, not least from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I will not rehearse all the statistics, but I would like to add two of my own: Sudan is now the deadliest place on earth to be a health worker, and it is the second deadliest place on earth to be an aid worker. There can be no justification, in any circumstance, for attacks on those who simply seek to serve humanity. When faced with suffering on this scale, our compassion is not enough, and our outrage is not enough. I know that Members want to hear about our action, so let me go through the points that have been raised in turn.
This year, the UK has committed £146 million in support for Sudan, which will reach over 1.8 million people. Having been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), I am pleased to confirm that, as part of that work, we have launched a £20 million programme to support survivors of sexual and gender-based violence with medical and psychological care. To ensure that those closest to the crisis can deliver aid to the hardest-to-reach areas, we have more than doubled our support to local Sudanese responders, including to local emergency response rooms. I am proud of what we are doing on aid, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out, aid alone is not enough, which is why she sought reassurance on arms sales.
Jim Shannon
I very much welcome the Minister’s response; I never doubted for a second that it would be positive. My contribution was specifically about Christians, who do not seem to be seeing any of that aid coming through. What can be done to ensure the equal dispersal of aid to all ethnic groups, particularly the Christians who just do not seem to be getting it?
Kirsty McNeill
I apologise for not addressing that in my remarks. Equality of access to aid is obviously incredibly important. I would be delighted to write to the hon. Member after the debate on particular questions about freedom of religion or belief and equitable distribution to all communities in Sudan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham asked for reassurance about our position on arms sales, and I want to confirm that the UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. Every single licence is assessed for risk of diversion and kept under careful and continual review. We have so far reviewed over 3,000 export licences for destinations where there have been allegations of diversion or transit to Sudan, and we have thus far found no evidence of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. We will keep that under continual review.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East also asked whether the UK supports expanding the arms embargo to the whole of Sudan. I am pleased to confirm that, as she will know, negotiations on the renewal of the UN embargo are currently under way, but the UK is full-throatedly supporting efforts to extend its scope. Last year, we worked closely with the United States and other UN SC members to secure its renewal, and the UK has a long-standing bilateral arms embargo in place for the whole of Sudan, sitting alongside a separate UN arms embargo on Darfur.
Several hon. Members asked about the diplomatic priority of the conflict in Sudan in the new Foreign Office team. I want to be absolutely clear that it is central to everything that the Foreign Secretary and I are trying to achieve. We are committed to doing all we can to secure a ceasefire. In April, the UK hosted the international Sudan conference in Berlin to marshal the efforts of the 55 states present to press for a ceasefire. As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, we have secured eight resolutions and 12 press statements, galvanising global action towards a ceasefire. We regularly speak to members of the Quad, and others with influence, to co-ordinate efforts towards the US-led push for a truce to protect civilians and ensure that critical humanitarian aid can reach those who are most in need. Our special representative to Sudan also regularly engages with the warring parties, advocating for a ceasefire and a civilian-led transition.
I have been asked today about the nature of the conversations that we have been having. I am pleased to confirm that I was recently in Addis Ababa and was able to raise the situation directly with the chairperson of the African Union. I can also confirm that FCDO Ministers including the Foreign Secretary have raised the situation in Sudan with Emirati counterparts and other members of the Quad.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), spoke powerfully today, particularly about the need for atrocity prevention in El Obeid. I want to reflect for a moment on what we are doing there. The UK has lobbied at every level, including with the warring parties and those with influence over them. As the UN Security Council penholder, we have been advocating to highlight the risk of atrocities and push for an immediate ceasefire. On 3 July, we convened an urgent debate at the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in El Obeid, calling for urgent de-escalation, humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians. On 6 July, a UK-penned resolution urging the warring parties to agree an immediate ceasefire and comply with international law was adopted by consensus. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also asked whether we would be extending the fact-finding mission’s mandate; I can confirm that we are indeed pushing for that, as we led for the mandate in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about our engagement with the Sudanese civil society and diaspora. Officials engage frequently with members of the Sudanese diaspora and civil society, including through a quarterly diaspora engagement forum that co-ordinates engagement across the UK and, indeed, in the region.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East asked about the recent reports of chemical weapons use. As hon. Members might imagine, we are hugely concerned. All such allegations must be taken seriously and investigated, because any use of chemical weapons, by anyone anywhere, is utterly unacceptable. As Members will know, Sudan is a state party to the chemical weapons convention, and we expect all those in Sudan to abide by its obligations.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) brought to our attention the issue of Colombian mercenaries. I want to confirm that we have already sanctioned Colombian mercenaries suspected of involvement in atrocities in Sudan, as well as those suspected of supplying weapons to the RSF. We have recently targeted actors suspected of using the gold trade to bankroll Sudan’s brutal war from beyond its borders.
I will say a little more about gold, because it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). In July, we announced a fresh package of sanctions against illicit gold networks. That followed four rounds of designations targeting senior SAF and RSF commanders and those suspected of being complicit in the heinous atrocities committed during the assault on El Fasher last year.
I have been asked to reflect on future sanctions. As Members will appreciate, we generally do not do that, because it limits their effectiveness, but I can assure them that their representations have been heard.
We have also focused on this situation through our work in August on the UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention and justice in Sudan, with a two-day conference in London at which we discussed innovative civilian-protection measures and heard directly from the independent fact-finding mission ahead of its vital report, which we have just been discussing.
I am pleased to confirm that at the UN General Assembly later this month, the Foreign Secretary and I will continue to make the case that Sudan cannot, must not and will not be forgotten. As we all know so well, every single day that this conflict continues, the human cost grows, but so too does the need for dialogue, justice and peace.
David Mundell
Will the Minister commit—the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) certainly indicated this—to being proactive in bringing statements to the House of Commons in relation to the situation in Sudan? Many of the previous statements have had to come as a result of urgent questions. Proactivity from her Department would be welcomed across the House and would be helpful in shining a light on the issue.
Kirsty McNeill
I am delighted to confirm that I will be very proactive, yes. I am so moved by and appreciative of all Members who have come to speak today, their constituents and the work of the APPGs in which they are all involved. I happily confirm that, both to those Members with specialist knowledge and to those raising issues on behalf of constituents.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for being generous in taking our questions. The most evil, wicked and bestial crimes have been carried out, including the murder or rape of women from ages eight to 80, the destruction of property and the infliction of injuries, with people’s arms and limbs being taken off. The House would be keen to understand whether there has been any attempt whatever to collate all those atrocities and the people involved in them, so that they can be held accountable.
Kirsty McNeill
Yes, the UK is supporting documentation attempts so that there can be accountability.
I am conscious of time, so I will draw to a close. We cannot and will not allow Sudan to slip down the agenda, globally or in this House, because Sudan matters: its people matter, their dignity matters and their future matters. The United Kingdom will continue to stand alongside them in their pursuit of peace, justice and a better future.
Naushabah Khan
I thank all colleagues for their approach and for contributing so powerfully to this debate. They have drawn to our attention some matters of detail to address in the crisis that we face, from the impact of gender-based violence to the role played by other actors in the region. It has been an important discussion and I thank everyone for their contributions.
I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank her warmly for her response, and particularly for her commitments to addressing gender-based violence in the region and for her assurances around arms licences and the embargo. I also thank her for her commitment to proactively bringing the issue to the Floor of the House; it is incredibly important that we have space to do that. Notwithstanding the fact that colleagues in this room have done a lot of work on the issue, we need to keep up the political pressure and ensure that this humanitarian crisis is given the attention it needs.
Despite the clear assurances from the Minister, there is clear consensus in this Chamber that we still need to do more. Our place on the world stage means that it is incumbent on us as a nation to go further, not just for the stability of the region but for the people of Sudan, who are at the heart of this humanitarian crisis. They are looking to the international community to facilitate an end to the suffering. I hope that we can continue to work in a constructive manner, directly with the Minister and more widely, to bring an end to this situation.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I thank everyone for their contributions. I cannot help noticing that powerfully standing up for women in Sudan have been the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), who secured the debate, and three Front-Bench women.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the conflict in Sudan.
Vehicle Theft
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of vehicle theft.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Data commissioned by the Liberal Democrats shows that since the start of 2025 115,448 instances of vehicle theft have been recorded across England and Wales. Home Office data shows that vehicle theft has risen by 75% in the past decade. Even accounting for the increased number of cars on our roads, theft rates have risen from 2.71 to 4.42 cases per 1,000 privately owned cars. To put those figures into perspective, that is one vehicle stolen in England and Wales every four minutes. According to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, 357,000 cars and vans have been stolen in the last five years alone.
In 2025-26, Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary recorded 2,408 cases of vehicle theft. Although that represents a slight decrease from the year before, when 2,455 cases were recorded, it remains far too many. Local police have told me that vehicle theft is increasing in my constituency. Car theft is not a victimless crime: behind every statistic is a person whose life has been disrupted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. In 2025, 154 aggravated vehicle-taking offences were recorded across Northern Ireland. Stolen vehicles are often driven dangerously, which places the public and emergency services at risk. In June 2026, a man was charged with attempted murder in Downpatrick after a stolen police car was driven at an officer, leaving him with serious injuries. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must do more to deter individuals from engaging in aggravated vehicle theft, including by having harsher penalties, which are necessary to reduce these offences, thereby protecting the public?
Liz Jarvis
The hon. Member makes a good point.
This is also about the human impact of these crimes. I have heard from constituents, including NHS workers who have not been able to get to work or do the school run because their car vanished overnight. In one case, a couple told me that they saw a van pull up outside their property, and then someone get out and simply drive their car away. In April this year two constituents woke up to find that their brand-new car had been stolen while they slept. The insurance payout did not cover the real cost of a like-for-like replacement. The feeling of intrusion was significant for my constituents, whose sense of personal safety and security have been violated by the thoughtless crime that took place just metres from where they slept. The emotional toll was difficult for them both, and being without a car for several weeks was very disruptive: they had to cancel hospital appointments and other commitments, including collecting their grandchildren from school.
For tradespeople, the impact can be even more direct. A van is stolen every 52 minutes in this country, taking with it the tools of someone’s trade and their ability to earn a living. For many of my constituents, there is not always a bus to fall back on. With the 61 bus service cut in late 2025, there is one less option for residents who no longer have a car to rely on. Losing a car to theft leaves people feeling exposed and unsafe in their own homes. Their sense of security, once lost, is hard to win back.
To understand why this crisis is accelerating, we need to look at how these thefts are being carried out. The methods being used today bear little resemblance to the car thefts of a decade ago. The most common method now is relay theft, where criminals used a signal amplifier to capture a key fob signal from inside the owner’s home and then relay it to a device held next to the car. That tricks the vehicle into unlocking and starting without the key being present. Another method is controller area network bus injection, which involves physically accessing the vehicle’s onboard computer through an exposed entry point, using plug-in devices disguised as harmless electronics.
What should concern us most is how accessible this technology has become. These are not improvised tools: devices targeting high-end vehicles can sell for more than £20,000, so there is a serious criminal market built around vehicle theft.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Vehicle theft across the west midlands has fallen by 13.6% since its peak in 2022-23, which is welcome news for my constituency of Wolverhampton North East, but little consolation for a person whose vehicle has been stolen—it is a devastating experience. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister and all of us must continue to work with the police and manufacturers to ensure that vehicles are harder to steal?
Liz Jarvis
I absolutely agree. Working with manufacturers is key.
As this technology has advanced, prices have fallen, with cheaper devices including low-cost models from China now appearing in the UK, and yet videos demonstrating exactly how to use those devices remain available online. I urge the Government to press platforms to remove that content. As things stand, we are allowing criminals to access step-by-step instructions on how to steal a car. The scale of the shift is reflected clearly in the data: in 2019 signal manipulation accounted for just 14% of vehicle theft methods, but by 2024 the figure had risen to 58%.
Manufacturers have made real strides in vehicle security. The introduction of electronic engine immobilisers meant that the unauthorised starting of an engine became far more difficult, requiring a key to transmit a unique cryptographic code to the vehicle. However, in 2013 the long-term decline in vehicle theft reversed—a shift that coincided with the introduction of keyless and remote-start vehicles, which introduced a new vulnerability into what had largely been a successful security system.
That is the core of the problem: manufacturers can defend only against threats that they already know about. They are investing to keep up, but criminals are innovating faster than the manufacturers can build. The numbers make this vulnerability hard to ignore. Vehicles between five and 10 years old are the most likely to be stolen, as their fixed security systems cannot be updated to keep pace with current threats, leaving owners exposed to threats their vehicles were never built to withstand.
Some 73% of vehicles stolen between 2024 and 2025 were taken straight from their owner’s driveway or street, so a steering wheel lock or wheel clamp adds a visible physical barrier that can be enough to deter a thief, even if a vehicle’s electronic security has been compromised. Something as simple as parking in a well-lit area can make a difference, given that 80% of vehicle thefts take place between 6 pm and 6 am, with thieves relying on speed and the cover of darkness.
I welcome the provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to tackle the current technological nature of vehicle theft. For years, criminals have exploited gaps in the law, using signal jammers and relay devices to bypass security systems that drivers, understandably, assumed were protecting their vehicles. By legislating to criminalise the possession, manufacture, sale and supply of these devices, the Act closes that gap. Anyone caught with one now must prove they have a legitimate reason or face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. In Northern Ireland in 2023-24, there were 2,393 vehicle thefts, with a population of 1.9 million, which equates to 126 car thefts for every 100,000 people. Does the hon. Member agree that tackling the problem requires a layered approach to vehicle security, with us making vehicles harder to steal, easier to trace and recover, and less attractive to target in the first place?
Liz Jarvis
I absolutely agree.
Although the Crime and Policing Act closes one gap, the right to repair allows another to remain wide open. Right to repair legislation exists to stop manufacturers overcharging drivers for repairs, which is a necessary principle designed to protect consumers. However, the practice of providing car owners with detailed insights into how a car’s security systems work is being exploited by criminal gangs, who are using that information to build new theft devices. While the Act starves thieves of one tool, right to repair is handing them the blueprint for the next. Will the Minister commit today to reviewing the connection between right to repair legislation and vehicle security to help combat vehicle theft?
Despite the Crime and Policing Act, the odds remain stacked in the thieves’ favour, with just a 6.7% chance of being caught, and fewer than one in four thefts even investigated. There is a widely held view that vehicle theft has effectively been decriminalised, with the perception that law enforcement has neither the will nor the resources to respond. In fact, Liberal Democrat research has found that police did not even attend the scene in over 70% of car theft cases, reinforcing the sense among many victims that no one is coming.
We are no longer dealing with opportunistic criminals. Organised operations are laundering stolen parts through online marketplaces and are adapting faster than our current systems can respond. This is a sophisticated, technological criminal industry and it requires a response to match. This is not just a regional concern: at a national level, intelligence collection on vehicle theft rests with a single Opal analyst. Does the Minister believe that one analyst is sufficient to build a national picture of an organised, cross-border crime? If not, what is being done to help resource these things properly?
Intense pressure on police force funding has resulted in forces scaling back their vehicle theft investigative units, causing not only a decline in manpower but a loss of officers’ expertise and skillsets, which are not being replaced. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing to ensure we have a trusted presence in all neighbourhoods, focused on preventing and solving crimes.
In December 2024 the Government announced their neighbourhood policing guarantee, pledging 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles. However, since that announcement the number of officers has actually fallen. By March this year we had 4,000 fewer frontline officers protecting our streets than the year before. If the Government are serious about this crisis, they need deliver, not promise, more officers on our streets.
Crime reporting is processed primarily through helpline reporting. That has diminished the relationship between local police forces and the communities they serve. We call for a police front desk to be set up in every community to allow people to report crimes and to share information with the police face to face in accessible locations. I am proud to have helped to secure a police station for Eastleigh. More personal contact means that more crimes are properly investigated and more criminals are caught.
Vehicle theft has become an epidemic in this country. It is organised and evolving, and it is being met with a system that has neither the resources nor the co-ordination to keep pace. We have seen through the Crime and Policing Act what good legislation can achieve, but a single loophole is enough to undo that progress. We have seen manufacturers innovate, only to be outpaced by criminals who innovate faster still, and we have seen police forces stretched so thin that catching a car thief has become the exception not the rule. My constituents in Eastleigh deserve better than a 6.7% chance of justice. I hope the Minister will use this debate not simply to acknowledge this crisis but to act on it.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing the debate.
I start by thanking the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead in this area, Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Grahame, and her colleague Oli Fisher, who lead the work nationally on our response to vehicle crime. Vehicle crime soared in the 1970s and 1980s, but there was then a big fall as new technology designed out vehicle theft and vehicle crime. As the hon. Member suggested, it then increased over about the last 10 years, although it has dropped over the last two. That is partly because of some of the disruption the police have been able to do. Ridiculously, issues such as the strait of Hormuz also make a difference, because vehicles are often shipped abroad when they are stolen. Just as global trade is interrupted, global criminals are interrupted when there are big global shifts such as those in Iran. There are multiple reasons, but numbers have gone down over the past two years.
At the moment, several bodies are looking at how to solve the problem. There are local police forces; the hon. Member pointed to numbers of police officers, and we are committed to putting 13,000 more police in our neighbourhoods. In her area, there are 88 more full-time neighbourhood officers than when we came to power, on the streets and policing our neighbourhoods in the way she would expect. Large criminal gangs are driving the changing nature of vehicle crime. Cars are stolen, using the technology in the way she explained, and then shipped abroad and sold on. Neighbourhood policing is an important part of the picture, but we need to address large criminal gangs nationally.
Some bodies are doing really good work in this area. The National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service, which is financed by the private sector, does some of the work opening containers at ports, and there is more we can do in that space if cars are stolen and taken abroad. The hon. Member referred to Opal, which is the NPCC intelligence unit, and the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership has been in place for about two years. We in the Home Office give it £1 million, but is funded by the private sector.
The fundamental problem with serious organised crime that is not drugs, guns or very high-harm crime is that quite often a car will be stolen in one place and taken somewhere else. It might go to a port or pass through three or four different forces, but because of the nature of the 43 police forces, the system is not joined up. Our reform programme will help with those kinds of serious, specialist crime. When we have a national police service responsible for serious organised crime, which brings together the different national agencies and oversees a more regional structure of policing, with local policing units that are responsible to their local communities at the bottom, that will enable the forces to flex those specialisms more where they need to be.
Our organised crime strategy needs to look at drugs and guns and at very high-harm crimes such as people-smuggling, but while car theft is less high harm it has a huge cost. This is a very lucrative business for the criminals, and an expensive business for us. Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Grahame will be able to tell us the annual cost, but it is something in the order of £1.7 billion. We need to look at this centrally, and the reform programme will help to tackle that challenge.
At an Interpol conference last year or earlier this year—forgive me, I cannot recall—lots of countries came together to talk about this challenge. Lots of countries have the same problem: Canada, the Netherlands and Japan are net exporters of stolen vehicles. Those vehicles are taken to certain ports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the United Arab Emirates, for example, and then sold on to other parts of the world. There are lots of problems with that network. For example, if a car enters Russia there are no checks on who owns it and whether it is stolen or not, so basically as soon as that car gets to Russia, off it goes. Some vehicles are sent into warzones, such as Ukraine, via nearby countries, and the more high-end vehicles are sold on to be used in other countries in the normal way.
There is a pattern that we are increasingly understanding, but the question is how we disrupt it. Part of the answer is through the legislation we have introduced, which is a good first step. Some of the kit that criminals use, such as a device that logs into a vehicle, can cost £30,000 to £50,000; these are obviously serious organised criminals who have the money to buy such kit. We now have the legislation, although it has not been enacted yet; we have passed the law, but it has not commenced. Nevertheless, it will make a difference.
I noted the hon. Lady’s point about online platforms and the videos on them, and I will take that away. It was not something that I was well aware of, but I will definitely take it away as something to raise with the tech companies, alongside the very long list that we are raising with them of other dangerous things online that should be taken down.
How do we work with manufacturers to design out vehicle crime and how do we ensure that the legislation is in place to disrupt vehicle crime as much as possible? In addition, there is a question about ports and how easy it is to get vehicles out of the country, which we need to look at. There is also the international picture and ensuring that we share information with police forces around the world, where we can. There is the central capability that I think we need as part of the national police service to ensure that we treat this crime with the seriousness it deserves.
The hon. Lady talked about the impact that vehicle theft has on individuals and communities, and she is right. There are some similarities with the theft of mobile phones and how the police respond to that, which is evolving. For an extended period, more and more people had their phones stolen, with each theft being dealt with by a local police force individually as an individual crime. The Metropolitan police in particular put some of this information together and realised that organised criminal networks were taking these phones, wrapping them in silver foil, putting them on a plane, sending them to China and selling them on from there. We understood the criminal network involved, and the police are now targeting and trying to disrupt them in various ways. There is a similar picture with vehicle theft, and we need to respond to it in a similar way. As I have said, I think the reform programme will help with that.
Of course we need to keep looking at new technology, new legislation and other things that we can do. I am very grateful to the police, who are already tackling this challenge, and I am particularly grateful to ACC Sarah Grahame, who is leading this work and pushing us in the Home Office to go further and do more.
With the reform programme, we in the Home Office are trying to design a structure that not only enables the police to do their job but enables us to step back and not have to provide small bits of funding for each individual crime type, and instead give the police the resources in the right place to tackle the problem. There is some evidence—not lots, but some—that the criminals stealing cars and sending them abroad also take part in other organised criminality of a more dangerous kind, involving guns and drugs. We need to gather more intelligence on that, but it is often the case that criminals do not stick to one type of crime; they do lots of things all at the same time. There is probably a network of organised criminals we should target who are not only stealing cars and moving them abroad but doing other things that are more high harm.
This debate has been a timely conversation on an issue that we in the Home Office are very alive to. We want to enable the police to respond to it. It is part of the changing nature of crime. People see a spate of car thefts in one area because the cars are stolen to order by serious and organised criminals who know what they are doing. They come into an area, they steal the cars there and they move on somewhere else, in part because they know that different police forces will not be joining up with each other, in the way that I described.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh again for securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) for raising the issues that her constituents are facing. Hopefully, what I have said today will reassure the hon. Lady that we are taking this issue very seriously, and I appreciate all suggestions and ideas as to what more we can do.
Question put and agreed to.
Media Green Paper
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Media Green Paper.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the media Green Paper, a hugely consequential document that has profound implications for all our broadcasters, news publishers and technology companies. I welcome a lot that is contained within it. Nevertheless, it contains some extremely controversial proposals, and I regret that Parliament has not really had an opportunity to debate them since its publication. The consultation period has now come to an end, so I hope that the Minister will still take account of my contribution and those of other Members when considering the way forward. It is also regrettable that we have only an hour. I will try to keep my speech brief, because quite a few Members have made the effort to attend.
I will focus on two issues that are perhaps the most controversial in the Green Paper. On the first—the suggestion that in 2034 we should move towards wholly internet protocol TV and discontinue digital terrestrial transition—I am generally supportive of the Government. There are clear benefits to doing so. It will represent a considerable cost saving to the broadcasters, as outlined in the Green Paper. Secondly, it will free up spectrum, for which there could be any number of alternative uses, and that will undoubtedly provide additional value to consumers. The third reason I welcome it is that it opens up an option on the other big issue, which is the subject of a different Green Paper and is perhaps the elephant in the room: the future of the BBC. The biggest argument against moving towards an element of subscription, at least, in the BBC is that that cannot be done while the BBC is subject to digital terrestrial transmission.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I just want to pick up something, because I have not studied the proposal to turn off the digital Freeview signal in enough detail. Every house would need an internet supply, so would that supply be provided free or would people have to subscribe to get it in?
Sir John Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend asks a perfectly valid question, and I want to acknowledge that there are concerns. We had a debate in Westminster Hall not that long ago, and a number of my colleagues—particularly from Scotland—turned up to express concern about the fact that the quality of reception via broadband in their constituencies is very poor and that the consequence of switching off DTT might be to prevent them from receiving television at all. That is clearly unacceptable. The proposal can go ahead only if we reach the position to which the Labour and Conservative Governments have aspired: universal access to high-speed broadband of sufficient quality to allow IPTV to be received.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I am concerned about the impact of the switch-off on commercial radio. The BBC may be able to absorb some of the consequences of the DTT switch-off, given the savings that it will make from its television distribution, but commercial broadcasters do not have the same offsetting saving. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should therefore consider how to ensure that commercial radio is not the unintended loser in a reform designed principally around television?
Sir John Whittingdale
I strongly agree, and that is the point that I was coming to next. A lot of the towers in the transmission network, which broadcasts digital terrestrial transmission, are owned by Arqiva, and they also carry the transmitters for commercial radio. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we turn off the television transmission, all the costs get loaded on to the remaining broadcasters—that is, the commercial radio stations. I therefore hope that the Minister will at least address that too, because the estimate that I saw is that it will potentially result in an increase in costs of more than 50% a year for commercial radio stations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One aspect of the media Green Paper for us in Northern Ireland is similar to the position in the rest of the United Kingdom, in that it will directly threaten not only our local broadcasting sector but the connectivity of our rural and most vulnerable communities. The 2034 switch-off of digital terrestrial TV is focused almost entirely on what appears on our television screens, but the real casualty is commercial and local radio. The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the issue. The economic modelling shows that transmission costs will surge by almost 50% per year for commercial radio. Does he agree that that will be the death of commercial radio?
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Member is completely right that this issue must be addressed before we proceed. There is also the question of cost, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). There are people who probably do have access to broadband, if they choose to pay for it, but they cannot afford to do so. They, too, would be severely affected if they were suddenly unable to receive television by that means. I support the ambition to reach a point in 2034 when we will be able to switch off DTT, but serious questions need to be addressed before we reach that point.
I will turn to the other major issue of twofold concern, because the Government are advancing two parallel policies on the question of prominence. I was the Minister responsible for the passage of the Media Act 2024, during the previous Parliament. It is a great delight to see some familiar faces with whom I have worked with in the past on the officials’ Bench. The Media Act was all about ensuring that our public service broadcasters were still highly visible in a world where people are getting smart, connected TVs. It simply maintained the prominence requirements, which was important, as all the broadcasters agreed.
It is now suggested that the same prominence should be extended to video-sharing platforms. I recognise and agree with the Government’s concern about the prominence of disinformation. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which did a big inquiry into disinformation. The best counter to disinformation is accurate, sourced, objective journalistic content, of the kind that public service broadcasters provide. Nevertheless, YouTube, the main video-sharing platform under discussion, was never intended as the vehicle for the big broadcasters. It is all about user-generated content. There is real concern that if the main broadcasters are pushed into greater prominence, some people will get less prominence. Those are the creators, start-ups and user-generated content. That undermines one of the original purposes of YouTube.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I want to come in on the matter of trust. One of the most trusted media or news sources is local media, with 42 million readers a week. I never miss an opportunity to say that the News Shopper is great. Does my right hon. Friend think that this is an opportunity for the BBC, which has done some great work with the local democracy reporting service, to enhance its effective work with local media so that we do not lose that trusted local news source?
Sir John Whittingdale
As one of the originators of the local democracy reporting service, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. It is incredibly important to have a thriving local media sector, and the BBC plays an important role in maintaining that. Anything that promotes BBC content would, I hope, equally promote local content, which has not had the same degree of attention that it deserves.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s views about prominence. How does he see his view sitting alongside reducing the voting age to 16 by the end of this Parliament, almost certainly in time for the next general election? Young people do not get much of their information from linear broadcast channels. They get a lot of it from places such as YouTube. How does he reconcile his views on prominence? In my opinion, it is a necessary but not sufficient way to get good, trusted media to young people to equip them to vote.
Sir John Whittingdale
That is perhaps even more relevant to the second prong of the Government’s proposals, which is about social media. I will come to that point, but before I finish talking about local media, I want to mention that another of the Government’s flagship policies is devolution. If we are to have more power given to local authorities, mayors and unitary authorities, people need to know what they are doing, and the absence of local media is a real problem in that respect. It will become ever more important to promote local media.
Lastly, I want to come to the second prong, which is about the prominence or promotion of trusted news providers on social media. I have to say that this policy gives me some considerable concern. There are lots of problems around definition. First, what is news? Secondly, what does “prominence” mean for a social media platform on which people access a personalised feed based on their previous content choices? There are practical difficulties with that.
I know the Government have already put in place the concept of recognised news publishers under the Online Safety Act 2023, but that had a very different purpose. The problem I have is with the idea that a Government agency of some kind will be saying, “This is a trusted news provider, and therefore this is not,” and deciding, or at least seeking to influence, where those providers appear in people’s feeds. I take the point from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that young people are turning more and more to social media, but I do not think that this policy is the answer, because it looks to me like a very dangerous extension of Government interference in the freedom of the press and the right to free speech. I would like the Minister’s assurance that there is no linkage intended to any form of regulation. The idea that perhaps news providers might be given prominence if they accept a regulatory structure that the Government want would be equally dangerous.
In some ways, I think that this problem is better addressed by the measures that we have already put in place. We have the digital markets competition regime, which is only just coming into effect. The Competition and Markets Authority could be doing much more to require the platforms to make public the algorithms they use to promote content. Before we go down that road, which carries real jeopardy, I hope that we will look instead to use some other measures that have already been put in place to ensure that reputable news providers get the position that they deserve in search terms and search, and also the rewards attached to them.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. As we consider the future of terrestrial television, we must ensure that technological change does not leave people behind, because for millions—especially older people and lower-income households—Freeview remains a vital source of television and an excellent service, which I use. Any transition from terrestrial broadcasting must be gradual and inclusive, as many people still lack reliable broadband or easy access to digital services. Public service broadcasting must remain universally accessible, and as Ministers consider the future of television distribution, I urge them to ensure that no household is excluded from trusted news, information and entertainment simply because of where they live or what they can afford.
There are very few pieces of national infrastructure that prove their value more clearly than terrestrial television during an emergency. We do not have to imagine what a national resilience crisis looks like; we just lived through one last month in my constituency when the devastating Stourbridge wildfires ripped through neighbourhoods, destroying 19 homes and tearing down power infrastructure. Entire streets were instantly cut off, rail lines were stopped, power grids buckled, and families were forced to watch their own neighbourhoods burn on television from the evacuation centre.
In those critical hours, when broadband and mobile networks faced severe pressure and outages, traditional terrestrial broadcast was not a relic of the past; it was a lifeline. Unlike internet-based networks, Broadcast 2040+ does not rely on broadband infrastructure; it remains a universal and resilient means of communication when other systems may fail.
A short-sighted, internet-only switch-off by 2034 ignores the reality of the climate and infrastructure risks. I believe that we must formally integrate terrestrial broadcasting into our national risk assessments and secure its future into the 2040s and beyond. True national resilience means ensuring that, when disaster does strike, every single household remains connected to vital, lifesaving information. Can the Minister assure the House that as television evolves, the public broadcasting service will remain free and universally accessible to all, and that the transmission network will be protected to ensure that, if the lights do go out, broadcasting can stay on?
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate. As always, we agree on virtually everything, so I will not repeat many of the things he said. I am also in broad agreement with the Government’s goals and much of the Green Paper but, like my right hon. Friend, I have two areas of concern.
First, I am concerned about the dynamics and practicalities of the future of television distribution after the switch-off of digital terrestrial television, provided most frequently through Freeview. That will take place in either 2034 or 2044, and it could have a profound impact on remote and rural communities in particular, such as parts of my Droitwich and Evesham constituency. Secondly, I am concerned about the thorny issue of prominence. It is a noble ambition to counter misinformation and to ensure that trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable, but it raises important questions. What exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies? How will such a system be enforced?
The Government have made it clear that a DTT switch-off is coming, so the question is not simply whether the transition will happen, but how it will protect vulnerable users and those at risk of being digitally excluded, notwithstanding all the positive reasons for the change, which my right hon. Friend outlined some moments ago and which I will not repeat. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted, in recent times of trouble, including storms and fires, we have seen how vital these services are, particularly when other forms of media, such as broadband and mobiles, may be switched off, and we must consider that security aspect to the debate.
The prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch-off on radio transmission costs. Without appropriate financial mitigation, it could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT; if there were a switch-off, the costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, creating a significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards and potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%. That is deeply concerning, particularly in rural communities.
Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others—particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes—may struggle to afford the internet contracts required to replace free-to-air television. We must not a create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and, importantly, essential public information. The Government must adopt a general rural-proofing approach to this transition, so that no community and no generation is left behind.
On a related point, the effects of that wider shift are already being felt in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitting station in Wychbold closed its long-wave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. Furthermore, there are security aspects to retaining long-wave capacity. It is very difficult to block analogue radio signals—at least, it is much more difficult than blocking their internet equivalent—and long-wave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis. In a future wartime scenario, the UK might be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles.
We then come to the issue of prominence. The Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media and to make public service media content more prominent on third-party platforms. The policy objectives are clear and noble but, as always, the devil is in the detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, there are concerns about how that will be executed and about the vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and its ability to hold us to account as politicians. We have to strike the right balance between ensuring that people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy. We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest debate stifled, and the exchange of new ideas discouraged.
The Government must therefore ensure that their definition of “trusted” content does not become a proxy for Government-approved content. There have been, and still are, authoritarian regimes around the world that have adopted such an approach to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies. Therefore, although I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister’s responses on those issues in his reply.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. Please note that, to get everybody in, I need to impose a five-minute time limit.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his pertinent opening comments. He said a lot of the things that I was going to say, so I will keep my comments as brief as possible.
I very much welcome the Government’s intention to tackle misinformation, but a crucial question that follows is who will decide what is trustworthy. It cannot be Ministers, and it certainly cannot be the tech giants. First off, then, I ask this Minister to consider an independent accreditation scheme based on the Press Council of Ireland model, with an independent chair and representation from journalists, the industry and civil society—protected by legislation but, crucially, independent of Government.
To be clear, trustworthy news has to mean more than public service broadcasting. That is a central pillar, of course, but it must include other outlets, independent publications and freelance journalists who meet recognised standards. The Government should support prominence for trustworthy news online, but that prominence must not become de-ranking by another name for journalists who challenge those in power. Alongside regulation, education is critical, so will the Minister commit to a nationwide, properly funded media literacy programme and restore the strategic priorities grant for journalism education, as urged by the National Council for the Training of Journalists?
We must have stronger duties on the platforms themselves, as we have heard from colleagues today. One option, supported by the National Union of Journalists—I am a chair of its parliamentary group—is the Cairncross review’s proposed news quality obligation. Will the Minister consider introducing stronger obligations on those technology companies that are amplifying harmful and misleading content, and will he ensure that Ofcom’s standards apply to online content, including video on demand?
We know that social media is dangerously fragmenting our information environment, so it is clear that public service broadcasting matters now more than ever. The BBC and other public service broadcasters provide journalism, investigation, culture and local coverage on crucial issues in the public interest, which commercial operators often do not consider profitable. Yet sadly, at the moment, the BBC is cutting hundreds of jobs and programmes. How can we honestly claim to be strengthening our information environment while we are allowing the capacity to produce trusted journalism to be cut away?
I have some key questions on which I am pretty sure the Minister is already working. Will the Government use the charter renewal process to secure sustainable funding for the BBC? Will he intervene to protect the jobs and programmes now under threat? If the Government believe, as I do, that over-75s should receive free TV licences, will they fund those licences directly, rather than making the BBC pay? Crucially, at a time when disinformation crosses borders in seconds, will the Government restore full funding to the BBC World Service? We must also address media ownership. Will the Government strengthen ownership rules and invest in local public service journalism, as proposed in the NUJ’s news recovery plan?
Finally—this case has been made articulately by hon. Members in this debate—we must protect access to television. We know that Freeview reaches 99% of the population and that a premature switch to internet protocol television risks excluding older people, disabled people and rural communities with poor connectivity. Will the Minister reject any Freeview switch-off timetable until free-to-air public service broadcasting is universally accessible and free at the point of distribution?
I welcome this debate and hope that the Government can address the issues raised. Getting this right means truly creating an information environment that serves our communities and democracy, not a wild west that serves whoever has the biggest algorithm, the deepest pockets or the loudest voice.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Universal accessibility is vital in this debate. I agree with much of what has been said so far, but I am concerned about the switch-off of free-to-air as it stands.
In the year I was elected, 2010, there were strong proposals to switch off the FM and AM signals. We are now 16 years down the line, and long-wave has just been switched off; the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about losing the ability to do a long-wave broadcast are important to bear in mind. We keep talking about the technology moving along and about being able to access broadcasts on cables and the internet, but that will never be true for people who live on canal boats, for example. With digital television, these days someone can just stick up a Squarial, point it in roughly the right direction and get their television channels—my wife and I have taken holidays in a canal boat and in a camper van, and we have been able to do that. A camper van is slightly different, because it is probably used more for leisure purposes, but there are people who live on canal boats. How are they going to get an internet connection?
Technology may move on, but it worries me that we say, “In order to solve this problem and that problem, you are going to have to buy or rent something, or in some way or another enter into a contract to receive something that you currently get free.” The BBC is one of the most valuable institutions this country has, because it is able to be a public service broadcaster. It loses its way at times, when chasing ratings and saying that it has to be in competition, on some things that only a public service broadcaster can deliver.
If we say that people will have to pay something or other to be able to get television, surely that completely destroys a licence fee. People will be not only taxed to watch television, but charged again to actually be able to use the thing that they are paying a tax on. The BBC has to maintain a free-to-air service, however that is delivered. I am not sure that that technology is there yet but, once it is, it will be vital that people are not charged for it.
The way forward is having tried and tested technology. A lot of us went out and bought DAB radios when they came out. Most of those DAB radios are now in the bin, because DAB+ was brought out and Classic FM stopped broadcasting on DAB; my previous car did not have DAB+, so I had to go back to FM to listen. I am sure we all have certain digital radio sets that now do not pick up many channels at all. The industry changing what a person can receive on, after they have already invested in new equipment, is also something that must be looked at.
My constituency has a lot of people who live on canal boats; I am sure many other constituencies do too. We must give careful consideration to those areas: where there is not a solid land point of contact permanently, how are we going to make sure that people receive the things that they currently get and pay a licence fee for? The licence fee is not a television licence fee; it is a licence fee, because it covers the radio broadcast as well. If it slowly gets to the point where people say, “I am already paying for this, so I am not going to pay for that,” it will remove a whole host of radio, and I think that radio is the most important thing that the BBC does.
I very rarely watch television news now, because it is just a second-by-second diatribe as the broadcasters try to fill in a gap all day long, whereas anyone who listens to radio news will actually get the news in half an hour. There is probably more news in the 6 o’clock news on Radio 4 than in two hours on one of the other broadcasters. There are some very sensible programmes; it is a great pity that “The World Tonight” is coming to an end, although replacing it with “Newshour” from the World Service could be very useful.
However, there could be some unforeseen circumstances if we are asking people to pay twice. Given the reputation of the television licence, they may stop paying it. Fundamentally, I want to make sure that we do not take away the ability even to receive television, and that we keep considering whether people may be land-based and whether they can get that connection.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this debate.
Most people are turning to on-demand and streaming services to watch television and digest media content in Wales, but the shift is not universal: 22% of households in Wales still rely on digital terrestrial television to watch their TV. That reality of hybrid media consumption must therefore be reflected in the UK Government’s policy choices or we risk exclusion. We cannot forget that in Wales, a fifth of our population are older and therefore more affected by the barriers to home internet access. Those of us living in rural Wales know that a good and fast internet service is not always available, especially in Caerfyrddin, where the average download speeds are 40% slower than the UK average.
Ofcom reports that more hard-to-reach households are turning to satellite connectivity; however, increased costs and limited availability means that this is not an option for everyone. Recent polling found that over half of Welsh adults are not confident that their area’s internet connection is good enough to get rid of Freeview. Improving digital inclusion and access should be a UK Government priority before decisions are made to switch off digital terrestrial television.
Noting those issues does not mean ignoring the challenges facing our broadcasters. Those challenges are already playing out, with £9 million of cuts to BBC Cymru. The BBC, ITV and S4C are public service broadcasters. How can they continue to be a PSB while facing such enormous cuts? I therefore urge the Minister to consider S4C’s call for more medium-term funding through a multi-year funding settlement that allows for inflation and protection from outside cuts. The PSTN—public switched telephone network—switchover is a lesson in how people can be left behind when a process is rushed. I believe that the timeline for an eventual switch-off of digital TV should be context led and based on a workable plan.
However, if the UK Government will only consider one of two dates as part of their media Green Paper, I urge Ministers to decide on the latter switch-off date of 2044, for the reasons that I have noted, and to support our broadcasters in the interim through long-term sustainable funding, so that the media content in Wales remains accessible and reflects our communities.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate.
It is clear that the media landscape is changing, and changing rapidly. For many young people today, the first time they encounter a major news story is not by opening a newspaper or even turning on the TV; it is when a video appears on their social media feed, selected by an algorithm that is designed to keep them watching. Ofcom’s data tells us that three quarters of 16 to 24-year-olds now get their news mainly from social media. That represents a huge shift in how young people are understanding the world around them and comes with real dangers.
Algorithms are not necessarily designed to inform us; they are designed with engagement in mind. That means that, for social media platforms, attention rather than accuracy is the priority. As politicians, we know that this comes with real implications for our democracy. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said about the importance of young and new voters having access to reliable news sources.
We welcome the Green Paper, which recognises the change in our media landscape. However, the transformation is creating another challenge for our traditional broadcasters. Public service broadcasters have a vital and unique role in the UK’s media landscape. They provide trusted news, educational programming and content that brings communities together, but as audiences and advertising move online, the financial pressures on these broadcasters are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Just look at the BBC. From finding out who is voted off at the roundtable on “The Traitors” to listening to the shipping forecast, and from tuning in to 24/7 news coverage to watching educational content, the BBC is a quintessentially British service, loved and relied on by millions across the country. That vital public service, however, is under significant financial pressure, as made clear by the recent cuts to the BBC workforce and many of its much-loved programmes.
As a former Reuters journalist, I firmly believe in the mission of public service broadcasters such as the BBC. It should be celebrated and protected. It is welcome that the Green Paper recognises the importance of prominence for these unique services, but what is missing is a clear commitment to protecting the BBC itself—its independence, universal availability and ability to remain a properly resourced public service broadcaster. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a permanent BBC charter to enshrine the BBC’s core mission and mandate for generations to come. Do the Government agree that the core principles of the BBC must be protected in a permanent charter?
Another key matter for us in the Green Paper is the Government’s proposed transition from digital terrestrial television. The Green Paper sets out two possible deadlines—2034 or 2044—for switching off Freeview, with digital terrestrial television guaranteed only until the end of 2034. On that, we Liberal Democrats completely disagree with the right hon. Member for Maldon. I represent a very rural constituency, and I can tell the House that it is the most reliable and, importantly, free way in which people in my constituency and across the UK watch television. Today, 12.9 million homes use terrestrial television, including around 2.6 million that rely on it exclusively. In fact, more than a quarter of all television viewing in the United Kingdom last year was through Freeview digital terrestrial television. It is the single most popular way for viewers to access programming. It disproportionately serves older people, people on lower incomes and people in rural areas—precisely the groups least likely to have reliable broadband.
The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) focused on people who live in canal boats, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes across the country, thousands of them in my constituency, that still do not have a reliable wi-fi connection today, and 6% of adults in the UK lack any home internet access at all. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) made an extremely valuable point about the need for terrestrial TV when communities are navigating any kind of storms, floods or other natural disasters.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
In my constituency, more than a quarter of households failed to receive speeds of more than 30 megabits per second, and 11 of our 15 local areas rank among the worst-performing 10% nationally. Does the hon. Lady agree that a delay to the switch-off would afford remote coastal households enough time to adapt?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am deeply concerned about what it means for some of us in the rural south-west, as there are villages that will never get fast broadband. Setting a switch-off date without first closing this gap risks cutting off the communities that the Green Paper says it wants to protect.
We are also concerned by the cost implications for commercial radio. If it is lost, we will reduce the plurality in our media landscape. If we move to an internet-only model before universal broadband is genuinely in place, we do not just inconvenience households; we risk isolating them from local democracy, local information and local culture altogether. For my constituents, that is the difference between staying connected to what is happening in their community and being cut off from it entirely. We cannot ask people to give up a service that works today in exchange for a promise of connectivity that has not yet arrived.
We have already seen the Government water down their commitment on superfast broadband. It was initially promised that there would be next-generation gigabit broadband for every home by 2030, but at the spending review in June last year, the Government changed their target to 99% of premises having access to a gigabit-capable connection by 2032, so it is getting slower already. Contracts delivering superfast broadband have been scaled back in the past, after only those areas that were easiest to reach were connected. The Minister will therefore have to forgive me for being less than confident that we will have universal broadband by the sooner deadline of 2034. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will refrain from any Freeview switch-off until every household, including in hard-to-reach rural constituencies like mine, has reliable wi-fi in place? Can he give my constituents that promise today?
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate and setting out the issues in his usual, informed way, based on his expertise. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed. The way we consume broadcast media is moving away from the traditional channels towards the huge amount of content available on demand and on video streaming platforms.
I was struck by the Minister’s introduction to the Green Paper, in which he referred to watching “Noel’s House Party” on a Saturday with his family. I did the same, but that experience would be totally alien to many young people today—as reflected in the data, which shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year. It was seen by more people every month than all BBC channels combined. Furthermore, video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. The Green Paper is therefore right to grapple with some of the questions and implications.
Let me begin with an area that has not been mentioned where there is common cause, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas that has been covered in the debate is the plan to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms. That may be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the free society that we enjoy.
Are the Government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB News, which Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members have criticised and refused to appear on? Media organisations would benefit from the prominence regime only if they received approval from the state. That effectively means that a state body would decide what journalism people see.
That would also have the effect of reducing visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press. How would trustworthy news be defined? The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition. That potentially covers thousands of titles and is so broad as to be meaningless. Many think this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only news publishers approved by a regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
On that note, does my hon. Friend also make that link to the licence fee? The reason we have a licence fee, rather than paying through general taxation, is so that the BBC does not fear decisions that Ministers may make. The Government say they want to renew the licence fee, but at the same time are putting in place something that would take away the very reason for a licence fee instead of taxation.
James Wild
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the licence fee and the independence that it provides.
Ministers need to focus on consumers and citizens. Platforms are built around personalisation, with individuals determining the sources of content they trust and want to access. User controls and labelling already exist. The Green Paper refers to misinformation and disinformation around the horrific Southport killings, in part to justify these proposals.
However, we should note that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation being able to do so. Police forces now share more information as a result. Furthermore, where there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether that is local papers, radio stations or public service media.
More broadly, Ofcom found that more than three quarters of people think it important to check different sources if they are unsure whether a news story is true. That provides some reassurance.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am quite concerned about the increasing use of AI-generated summaries online, which rely on what we call trusted sources. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points about what defines a trusted source, and I am sure the Minister will answer all his important questions, but I am concerned that in future, if people become more reliant on AI summaries rather than on primary sources, those trusted sources might no longer exist. Does he recognise the importance of people not relying on AI summaries to get their news?
James Wild
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. We should be having more and much longer debates about precisely these issues. I hope the Minister will at least rule out any notion that to qualify for prominence, if such a scheme is put in place, a publisher would need to sign up to a state-approved regulator.
On the proposals for the digital switch-off from either 2034 or 2044, latest Barb data shows that 2.6 million households rely on terrestrial TV because they do not have broadband or internet-connected TV. However, usage is also declining; we have heard about the pressure that that puts on broadcasters using those channels to get to a declining level of households. For many of my constituents, including older people, people in low-income households, and those in rural and remote areas, Freeview remains essential. By 2034, according to the impact assessment in the Green Paper, 1.5 million households could still be reliant on traditional broadcast platforms.
There are serious challenges to be addressed, not least in respect of proper broadband access. The Government must therefore have answers and must have what the Secretary of State referred to as “watertight” plans. Any switch-off date should be treated as conditional, setting out the tests that need to be met and the support for all those who may otherwise be left behind. I call on the Minister to provide clarity on the timeline for the decision on switch-off, and a commitment that vulnerable and rural communities will not be left behind.
On the broader issue of the prominence of public service media content on video platforms, chapter 4 of the Green Paper states that the Government’s preference is that that be subject to “industry-led, voluntary agreements”. That must be the right approach. YouTube is already talking to public service providers on that basis, but there is no attempt in the Green Paper to qualify any legislative costs or impact should the Government go down that route. It is clear that transferring the concept from linear broadcast and prominence to that approach without imposing excessive costs will be challenging. In conclusion, the Green Paper focuses on a changing landscape and poses a series of fundamental questions that we need to spend more time considering.
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ian Murray)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan; I think this is the first time I have responded to a debate with you in the Chair, so congratulations. I congratulate the new shadow Minister on what I understand is his first visit to Westminster Hall since his appointment. It has been a good visit.
It is great to be having this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing it. He is right to say that an hour is not enough for it, but I am sure we will come back to these issues on a number of occasions. As he knows, we have a Green Paper process to consider the principles behind these big issues, and we then work out the detail by asking people what they think is the best way to deliver things. I know that he is very knowledgeable about these issues and will continue to bring that knowledge and experience to the Chamber.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Green Paper has some controversial proposals, but I am not sure that they are necessarily controversial. There are big questions that we have to answer in a changing media environment, and they sit alongside a number of other big issues that the Government currently have timetabled, including the BBC charter, which I will come to in a few moments. BBC charter renewal, the Green Paper and other issues of online safety are all coming together in this new environment, with the blurring between what is television and other issues.
Let me set the scene for why we are doing this. When they are functioning effectively, we would all agree that our media provide the foundation for a cohesive country and a healthy democracy. They can establish shared understanding, shared facts and shared experiences. That is crucial for helping people to trust and understand one another, and for communities to be held together.
However, the media are facing huge challenges. As we set out in the Green Paper, television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from the system of limited broadcast channels we had when we were growing up, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) suggests, to an environment of having content everywhere for everyone, where the largest players are the global streaming services, video-sharing platforms and social media companies. Our domestic broadcasters, which are the best in the world, including our public service media providers, are battling to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market in which audiences are seeking their entertainment and news.
As we know, people—particularly the young—increasingly access news online, rather than through more regulated spaces such as their TV sets, so there is a disparity: if someone is sitting in front of a piece of content on television, it is regulated, whereas if they watch the same or similar content online, it is not regulated. That is the kind of big issue that the Green Paper is trying to draw out. That weakens the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape and inform public debate. The Government believe that we need to do more to adequately equip younger generations with access to high-quality media. That is why we are acting.
In the light of those challenges, for the “Watch this space” Green Paper we consulted on a variety of proposals to ensure that media, and television in particular, can continue to play a vital role in our society and our democracy by making high-quality UK content and trustworthy news accessible and sustainable for the next generation and beyond. I welcome this debate and the many thousands of responses to the consultation that we received—many tens of thousands, I believe—which help us scrutinise every measure properly to ensure it is as robust and forward-looking as possible.
Let me come to some of the issues that Members raised. First, the right hon. Member for Maldon raised prominence. Public service media content needs to be easy to find on the platforms on which people watch TV or TV-like content. The Green Paper therefore examines the need for increased discoverability on third-party platforms such as video-sharing platforms. The Government have been very clear that our strong preference remains an industry-led voluntary agreement to achieve that in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties. I pay particular tribute to YouTube for the way in which it has engaged with us. However, should those partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives, we will need to consider legislation.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk said that content on YouTube is delivered by the user or by user preference. It is not, really; it is delivered by the algorithm. What is delivered to users is fed to them by whatever the algorithm suggests. If it were purely user-driven, that would deal with prominence, because people would be looking for the stuff that they want to see.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Minister is making an important point, and I completely agree. My question is quite simple. Every nation around the world is grappling with this problem, although we have the BBC, which is a phenomenal and unique achievement. Has he looked at other jurisdictions and countries to gather international best practice? Every nation is dealing with the fact that all of our media now takes place on platforms that are mostly owned by big American tech firms.
Ian Murray
Absolutely. The international comparisons are not there, because nobody in other regimes has done this before for prominence. If we look at the entire online world, we see that Australia has been the cheerleader for an under-16s social media ban and for functionality changes to social media, but nobody has really looked at the algorithms, how people digest their entertainment and where it comes from, so we would be the first movers. One of the key issues that we have to unpick is that we want a UK solution for UK audiences and users, but west coast American companies dominate the marketplace. That is one of the key things that we are trying to work through with this Green Paper and the big issues that have been raised.
I will not go into the various ways of improving discoverability today, but they will be looked at in the coming weeks and months as a result of the Green Paper consultation. We want a thriving public service media sector, which would have massive spill-over effects for the entirety of the rest of the economy. If we crack prominence and get it right on a voluntary basis, we will not need legislation.
The right hon. Member for Maldon said that YouTube is all user-generated and not mainstream, so we should not give public service media prominence in it. I am sure he shares that very strong view with others. YouTube may once have been the home of cat videos and other things, but it is changing. In December 2025, YouTube had higher monthly viewing figures than the BBC for the very first time, so people are digesting that content, and I am not quite sure whether those users are aware of the differences between it and television. I know that if I sit my six-year-old daughter down in front of the television, she can watch something that is heavily regulated and safe. I would never sit her down in front of YouTube and just let her watch stuff, for the simple reason that she should probably not be doing that at six—and it is unregulated.
I want to talk briefly about the BBC, because it sits alongside the issues of public service media and prominence. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) raised a number of issues about the BBC. We will have a permanent charter. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised that issue as well, but the Secretary of State has been very clear that we will have a permanent charter. That is a great outcome for the charter renewal period, I think. On under-75s, we have no plans to change the position. It is now the preserve of the BBC to make those decisions, and it has done so. Under-75s on pension credit do receive a free television licence.
I say to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) that the charter review has a very clear commitment to supporting minority language broadcasting, including Welsh and indeed Gaelic, as Members can tell from my accent. We are actively exploring ways to ensure that S4C in particular and minority-language broadcasting continue to be sustainably funded. Of course, one of the key questions for the BBC in relation to renewal is about the issue of sustainable funding, which the White Paper will address.
Perran Moon
Unfortunately, although the Green Paper highlights the importance of Welsh-language broadcasting, it is largely silent on Cornish-language content, despite Kernewek’s recognition in the Media Act 2024. Will the Minister ensure that these ambitions are translated into practical opportunities for Cornish-language content so that our national minority status is properly reflected?
Ian Murray
In the interests of time, I will take that as a lobby and will add it to the consultation responses.
I want to deal very briefly with two big issues that have been raised a lot. The first is about what trustworthy news is; that is what the Green Paper is trying to address, and we will come back with proposals relatively shortly. I welcome the debate across the Chamber.
The second issue is the future of television distribution. I think we all agree that we have dealt with the “if”—we will move from DTT to internet-only television at some point—but we have to deal with the “when”. Is it 2034? Is it 2044? I accept the big arguments around payments and around connectivity, the quality of connectivity and digital inclusion, but none of those should be a reason not to go forward in 2034 if that is what we decide. It should be the beacon that we aim for to deliver on digital inclusion and high-quality broadband in every part of the country and make sure that people are included.
As a Government, as a Parliament and as constituency Members of Parliament, we should not just accept that broadband might not be good enough and that therefore we should not make these decisions. We should use it as a key driver to make sure that we can deliver on connecting everyone and on the benefits not just of television, but of everything that comes with being digitally included and digitally connected. We have not made a decision on 2034 or 2044, which is why both dates are in the Green Paper.
Other issues have been raised, but in the interests of time I will conclude. No doubt we will come back to this debate. We have the Green Paper and the consultation closed on 31 August, so the next steps are to go through the process of analysing all the responses that many Members and their constituents have inputted. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon for bringing forward this debate; I look forward to his securing further debates on the Green Paper as the process works through.
Sir John Whittingdale
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. The number of Members present indicates that this is a subject that deserved more than an hour; I welcome the Minister’s recognition of that point and his suggestion that there may be further opportunities to come.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on the record some points about which I have concerns. I look forward to the Government’s coming forward with further proposals once the consultation has been considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Media Green Paper.
Written Statements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Space Strategy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Minister for Space, Cyber and Regulatory Reform has today made the following statement:
I wish to inform the House of the publication of the UK Space Strategy, which has been laid before Parliament. Building on the aims of the 2025 Industrial Strategy and Strategic Defence Review, it sets out a one Government approach to space focused on delivering priority outcomes in defence, national security and economic growth, backed by £7.8 billion of funding, building on the ambition set out in the Defence Investment Plan.
The strategy builds upon the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy’s approach to reindustrialising the UK and delivering good growth in every postcode across the UK. It aligns activity across Government to provide a coherent and prioritised portfolio for delivery into the 2030s. It will enable the UK to become a more competitive, agile space power, better able to innovate and shape outcomes in a rapidly evolving domain. To maximise impact and deliver value for taxpayers, we have made clear choices to prioritise investment in capabilities where the UK can generate the greatest benefit across defence, national security and growth.
As reliance on space has grown, the domain has become increasingly contested by state and non-state actors. The UK must act now to compete more effectively, as other space powers increase their investment and scale in a domain of growing strategic importance.
Commitments in the strategy include:
Targeted investment in key space capabilities and high-growth sectors where the UK can achieve scale and deliver the strongest outcomes.
Action to strengthen the UK space ecosystem, including through funding local space clusters, supporting pro-growth regulation, and enhancing security, sustainability and resilience from space.
A co-ordinated approach to bilateral partnerships and multilateral leadership, driven by shared values and opportunity.
By setting clear priorities and direction of travel, the strategy provides greater certainty to industry, investors, innovators and international partners on future demand and opportunities across the UK space sector.
[HCWS315]
Artificial Intelligence: Energy Systems
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of the publication of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s AI-enabled clean energy system vision.
Artificial intelligence has the capacity to transform jobs, businesses and industries, drive productivity and boost long-term economic growth, including delivering a more affordable, reliable and responsive energy system for consumers.
In the energy system, artificial intelligence technologies can make more efficient use of assets, meaning we need to build less at lower cost while improving the quality of service for consumers. Put simply, better forecasting, planning and operation reduce waste and avoid precautionary overbuild, putting downward pressure on system costs and, ultimately, household bills and emissions. For consumers, this means a system that is not only lower cost, but more predictable, more responsive to demand, and better able to integrate technologies such as electric vehicles, heat pumps and flexible tariffs.
With world-leading deployment of renewable generation, strong scientific and innovation capabilities, deep capital markets and a skilled energy workforce, the UK is well placed to lead the next phase of energy system transformation. Many countries around the world have energy systems facing similar challenges. UK-based companies solving these with AI could export their products to markets around the world.
AI is already being adopted across the energy system, and this will continue with or without Government action. But as with previous technologies, adoption may be uneven, slowed by structural challenges, or pose new risks to the energy system and the consumer.
To this end, Government propose setting three high-level principles to guide AI deployment in the energy system—that it should:
Lower bills for households and businesses.
Increase the efficiency of the system and support decarbonisation.
Ensure energy security.
Government’s role is not to determine which AI models or tools should be used in particular functions, but to set clear public expectations, shaping the conditions for adoption. Government’s role is also to ensure that deployment by market actors is facilitated where it delivers system value and constrained where risks are unacceptable so that AI deployment is safe, ethical and aligned with societal expectations.
This document sets out early-stage thinking on how AI could transform the energy system over time, using two complementary lenses. First, it explores how existing and near-term applications could scale and connect across networks, markets, assets and end use—a plausible evolution in which AI becomes more embedded while strategic intent, governance and accountability remain firmly human-defined. Secondly, it uses a deliberately stretching “transformational” scenario to test what might change if AI autonomy and system integration advance rapidly, and what that would imply for control, accountability and governance in a safety-critical system.
This vision is intended as an initial articulation of opportunities and risks rather than a definitive assessment, and its core purpose is to test our framing and emerging positions with industry and other stakeholders. Following publication, we plan to deepen engagement and continue building the evidence base, including in response to the external review led by the Government’s AI and clean energy champion, which is being published at the same time and makes recommendations on rapid, safe and effective deployment pathways in electricity networks.
This engagement and evidence will inform prioritisation decisions on where and how Government should act to support adoption and manage risk, culminating in the UK’s upcoming AI for clean energy strategy.
[HCWS320]
British Council: Long-term Restructuring
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
The FCDO, the British Council and HM Treasury have formally agreed the long-term restructuring of the British Council’s £197 million loan. This is underpinned by a five-year restructuring plan to bring the British Council back into profitability across its commercial business.
This agreement provides a balance between ensuring full repayment of the loan, and therefore protecting the interests of the taxpayer, while enabling the British Council to deliver as one of the UK’s most important soft power levers.
The core tenets of the agreement are:
the loan will be restructured for a 15-year term until 2041, with a pause on capital repayments for a five-year period;
from financial year 2031-32, capital repayments will be paid in equal instalments for the remaining 10-year period, ensuring full repayment of the loan;
the loan will be provided on commercial terms, as required by the Subsidy Control Act 2022, in recognition of the British Council’s commercial teaching and exams business;
where possible, and subject to legal compliance in local jurisdictions, the FCDO is supporting the British Council in accessing local currency trapped overseas due to exchange controls. This trapped cash is expected to substantially cover the annual interest charge due on the loan; and
the five-year restructuring plan involves a significant efficiency drive, including the sale of assets to the value of £130 million, which will be reinvested back into the British Council business.
The British Council is now able to refocus on delivering against the turnaround plan and core remit: to promote UK values and interests overseas through its work in arts and culture, education and the promotion of the English language.
[HCWS317]
Ebola: Central Africa
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
Further to my announcement in the House on 1 September, I wish to provide a more detailed written update on the Bundibugyo virus disease Ebola outbreak affecting the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and on UK action with partners to support the African-led response, protect the UK public and help contain the outbreak.
Since the Government’s previous written ministerial statement—[Official Report, 21 May 2026; Vol. 71, c. 786WS.]—the outbreak has grown significantly. It is now the fastest growing Ebola outbreak on record. The latest data from the DRC, as of 1 September, reports 6,250 confirmed cases, and 2,744 confirmed deaths. The outbreak remains centred in Ituri, in the north-east of the country, but there is transmission in six neighbouring provinces. We congratulate Uganda, which, with the support of UK and other partners, has now been declared Ebola-free by the World Health Organisation, demonstrating the value of early action, strong surveillance and co-ordinated partner support. Wider regional readiness has improved but remains a challenge, particularly in countries with high cross-border movement and weaker health systems, including South Sudan, Burundi and the Central African Republic.
Recognising the developing needs of this outbreak, and the scale of the challenge, on 1 September I announced that the UK would provide an additional £51.8 million in funding towards the response. This builds on the £26.9 million in UK bilateral support already announced, including £21 million for the response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, support to Uganda and up to £5 million for research and development into vaccines and therapeutics. The lesson from previous Ebola outbreaks is clear: delay costs lives and ultimately costs far more. It is safer, cheaper and more effective to stop a disease at source than to deal with its consequences after it spreads. That is exactly what this funding is designed to do: to accelerate the response now in order to contain transmission and reduce the risk of wider regional spread. It will help affected countries and partners strengthen surveillance and contact tracing, expand treatment and case management capacity, improve infection prevention and control, support frontline health workers and engage communities to stop transmission.
The UK’s objectives remain to support containment at source, back the African-led response, reduce humanitarian impacts and wider secondary health impacts, strengthen regional preparedness and protect the UK public. Humanitarian access remains a significant constraint. Conflict, insecurity and armed group activity continue to disrupt operations and put responders at risk, while border measures and administrative processes are affecting the movement of personnel, equipment and supplies. The UK is working through our diplomatic missions in Kinshasa and across the region to help health and humanitarian workers move safely and quickly, and is helping to ensure that resources are directed where they are most needed.
The UK is also concerned about wider humanitarian and secondary health impacts. Ebola cases and deaths in internally displaced person camps underline the heightened risks facing vulnerable communities, where overcrowding and poor water, sanitation and hygiene increase transmission risks. Essential services, including sexual and reproductive health services, are also being disrupted. The UK is working with partners to reduce these risks and impacts, support vulnerable communities and help ensure that the response is safe, trusted and community-centred.
The UK is supporting regional preparedness and co-ordination. We have provided UK technical expertise—through the UK’s international health regulations strengthening project—alongside £1 million to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, or Africa CDC, to help co-ordinate essential equipment and medical supplies across the response. This complements national and regional plans by helping to identify priority needs and strengthen preparedness in at-risk countries and get critical supplies and expertise to where they are needed most. Support also includes direct technical assistance through the UK Health Security Agency, including embedded UKHSA advisers in Africa CDC.
The UK public health rapid support team has deployed 10 experts to support preparedness, readiness and response across the region, including through the WHO and UNICEF. They are contributing to preparedness in South Sudan with technical expertise and regional co-ordination.
The UK is supporting urgent research and development. Through UK support to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, working with national and regional authorities, the WHO and other partners, progress is under way on new vaccines, treatments and tests. Major milestones include recruitment of over 200 patients to the first treatment trial, supported by Oxford University’s Pandemic Science Institute, and the first two of four vaccine candidates supported by CEPI, including one developed by Oxford University, entering early clinical testing in humans, as well as social and behavioural science research and modelling to inform the response.
The UK has also worked with partners to strengthen international political co-ordination for the Ebola response. The UK co-chaired BVD international partners group brings together key donors, affected countries and African response leaders to support the African-led response and sustain political and financial support. The UK continues to engage closely with international and African partners on next steps to sustain co-ordination and support for the response.
The UK is clear that safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment, or SEAH, is a non-negotiable priority. We expect all UK-funded partners to meet the highest safeguarding standards, with robust systems to prevent, report and respond to incidents, and to ensure that affected people are at the centre of the response, especially the most vulnerable ones including women and girls. Safeguarding against SEAH is embedded in HM Government’s Ebola response strategy and delivery plan, including as a specific lesson learned from the 2018 outbreak.
The risk to the UK public remains low. UKHSA continues to monitor the situation, including international travel risks, and public health measures remain under review. It is very rare for Ebola cases to occur in returning travellers, but the NHS has robust procedures and specialist facilities in place to safely assess and manage any potential cases. UKHSA’s returning workers scheme has been activated to support workers returning from affected areas and contingency planning is focusing on managing any imported case of Ebola and facilitating contact tracing. FCDO travel advice remains under review, and consular support is available where needed.
By acting now, alongside affected countries and international partners, we have the best chance of saving lives and limiting further spread across the region. The UK will continue to strongly support an effective health and humanitarian response.
[HCWS318]
Iran: Sanctions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Today we are laying legislation that will tackle Iranian nuclear activity and other hostile Iranian activity.
The lack of transparency around Iran’s nuclear programme has long posed a serious threat to international peace and security. We have repeatedly seen Iran not act in good faith to address these concerns. For over two decades the international community has sought clarity and assurance about the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran has expanded its nuclear programme in ways that lack any credible civilian justification. This includes Iran’s accumulation of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%. Iran is the only country without nuclear weapons that has enriched uranium to this level.
The UK complied with its UN obligations to implement the snapback of UN Iran sanctions on 1 October 2025, when the Iran (Sanctions) (Nuclear) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 came into force. The UK went further and designated 71 individuals and entities in sectors that have links to Iran’s nuclear programme, including financial institutions and energy companies.
As my predecessor set out in a written ministerial statement to the House of 13 October 2025, and also in their oral statement to the House on 13 January 2026, the UK will now introduce legislation to impose further sectoral measures on Iran. Today I am laying in the House the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, through which the Government are amending both the Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023 and the Iran (Sanctions) (Nuclear) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
These regulations introduce sectoral measures that are broadly those lifted as part of the joint comprehensive plan of action. Today’s legislation therefore doubles down on our action to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Financial measures will further reduce the Government of Iran’s ability to access the UK financial system and raise funds in support of its nuclear programme. Trade prohibitions against Iran are expanded under this legislation to additional goods, technology and services, including those key to significant industries contributing to Iranian nuclear escalation, such as energy, software, metals, gold, and related activities such as shipping, insurance and banking. The export of additional goods and technology key to Iran’s conventional weapons and nuclear capabilities are also prohibited. In addition, to bolster our existing designations and the termination of our bilateral air services arrangements in 2024, Iranian aircraft will be prohibited from landing in the UK unless certain exemptions apply.
The legislation will further expand our powers to sanction ships, strengthening our ability to target ships enabling and facilitating Iran’s nuclear programme and malign and destabilising behaviour.
As part of the UK’s responsible approach to the use of sanctions, this legislation—like all sanctions legislation—includes carefully designed sanctions mitigations.
This will include general licences to enable the continued operation of the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, which provides critical energy supplies to our European partners. This is a continuation of long-standing policy and aligns us with the EU and the US, which have similar carve-outs for activities related to Shah Deniz.
Through these measures, the Government will uphold our commitment to ensuring that Iran is never able to acquire a nuclear weapon, and will strengthen sanctions that reduce Iranian hostile capabilities.
Iran’s nuclear programme has long been a serious concern to the international community. Iran remains in significant non-compliance with their international safeguards obligations.
A negotiated outcome is the only long-term solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. We remain fully committed to a lasting and sustainable diplomatic solution that ensures Iran never develops a nuclear weapon.
[HCWS319]
Rail Freight Growth
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I wish to inform the House of an additional target that the Government are setting for the growth of rail freight, as part of continued support for the freight sector to realise its economic and environmental benefits.
We have previously affirmed our support for the existing target of:
at least 75% increase in freight moved by rail in net tonne kilometres by 2050.
To help realise this ambition, I am now setting an additional target as a milestone towards achieving the desired growth, namely of:
at least a 40% increase in freight moved by rail in net tonne kilometres by 2040.
To further support our vision for the sector, I have expectations that there is potential for rail freight to increase volumes of different types of commodities by 2040. Namely:
an increase of 65% in high value goods in net tonne kilometres;
an increase of 45% in construction goods in net tonne kilometres;
an increase of 7% in critical goods in net tonne kilometres.
This new target reflects not only our ambition for the sector, but our commitment to improving supply chain resilience, economic growth and decarbonising our logistics sector. It is estimated that delivering the 2040 growth target will increase the value of goods moved by rail freight from £33.7 billion to £49.5 billion. It is also estimated that meeting the target would save a million tonnes of CO2 per year compared with freight moved by road.
The Railways Bill, which is currently before Parliament, provides for the Transport Secretary (Heidi Alexander) to set a rail freight growth target for Great British Railways. This will ensure that the duty to grow rail freight will be embedded in the new body’s decision making.
In this way, the Government’s target setting for the growth of rail freight will have statutory status and continue to play a key role in ensuring that rail freight continues to prosper as an integral part of the railway.
[HCWS316]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with the usual warning that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Railways Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
“(1A) The body corporate must be a company constituted under the Companies Acts.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify an ambiguity in this and the following Clause as to the legal character of the body corporate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in the course of preparing for this Committee, I have had a number of meetings with the Minister and his officials, and I thank them for making themselves available for those meetings. I say that now because I shall almost certainly forget to say it at more appropriate times later on, but if I do it is not because I do not mean quite seriously how grateful I am for the contribution and effort that they have made.
We are here on the first day of the Committee to create a Soviet-style railway in the United Kingdom and to go back—and we now know explicitly that it is the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s intention—to the warm and fuzzy 1970s. The 1970s are now the paradigm of where our nation should be. Those of us who remember the 1970s—there may be a number of us in the Room—do not have such fond memories of the standard of public services then compared with what we have today. We do not today have bodies unburied, we do not have refuse piled high in the streets as a result of government folly and we have railways that run broadly on time compared to the—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is not here to be annoyed by this—relative catastrophe of British Rail in its worst days as it trundled towards its final station. Now it is to be resuscitated. We are to get Great British Railways in place of British Rail and we are going to have it on a totally nationalised basis.
There are two separate things going on here. First, the Minister makes a case that the railways would operate more efficiently if, as he puts it, track and train were united. That argument can be debated. I do not wholly accept it, but it can be debated, but it is not necessary in order for track and train to be united that they should all be owned by the Government in a single company. We know that because the Williams review, which was warmly welcomed by the Minister when he was chairman of Network Rail and was supported by the Conservative Government at the time, gave an alternative way forward, so the decision to nationalise the whole thing is particularly spiteful. The only explanation for it—because it is not necessary for the purpose of achieving the Government’s stated objectives—is that it has been done to pay off the trades unions that made such generous contributions to Labour’s victory at the polls in 2024.
We know that privatisation has been a huge success on the railways and that passenger numbers increased enormously after privatisation. It would be astonishing if the Government nationalising the railways achieved anything like that increase in passenger numbers. New operators entered the market and competition stimulated improvements.
I have four amendments in this group, but one of them is consequential, so three that I intend to speak to. My Amendment 2 addresses a particularly vicious little clause in the Bill, which says, first of all, that the body designated as Great British Railways has to be owned wholly by the Crown. In other words, a future Minister would have to pass primary legislation to redesignate or designate a different body in the private sector to carry out Great British Railways’ activities. What is the need for that? It is simply to gratify the trades unions. A second part almost seems to impose a penalty of some sort on any Minister who makes even a suggestion that Great British Railways should be transferred to the private sector. My Amendment 2 deletes that part; it does not stop Great British Railways going ahead as a nationalised body but it allows a future Secretary of State without the need for primary legislation to redesignate a different body, not necessarily owned by the Crown, to carry out the role of Great British Railways.
Amendment 1 is addressed at sloppy drafting more than anything else. The Bill talks about a body corporate being designated as Great British Railways, whereas later, in the next clause, it is implicit that the body corporate should be a company constituted under the Companies Act. But the Bill does not actually say that the body corporate has to be constituted under the Companies Act; it only says that it has to be wholly owned by the Crown. Other bodies corporate could be designated, as long as they were wholly owned by the Crown. It is simply sloppy drafting not to say at this point that it is to be a body constituted under the Companies Act.
When I mentioned this to the Minister, he said, “Oh well, everybody knows it’s going to be a company constituted under the Companies Act”. Well, they do not, if they read the Act—it needs to be written into the Act by him that that is what the intention is. It should say quite explicitly that that is what he intends to do. We will come back to this when we discuss amendments later in Committee that relate to the board of this company. There are some from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name, about the board of this company and how this corporate structure works, because the Bill is very silent on that. This needs to be done.
Finally, Amendment 8 probes Great British Railways’ organisational structure. To this day we still have no idea at all—and maybe the Minister has no idea at all—how Great British Railways is going to be structured. Let me give a couple of options. It could be that it will be structured geographically, roughly mapping the existing structures, so that one division deals roughly with the south-western main line, one division deals with the east coast main line, and so forth. It could be structured like that, but you could have a totally different structure. There might be an argument for saying that we should have one division that deals with operating the railways, one that deals with managing the major stations, another division that deals with the minor stations and another again for retail. You could have an organisation that was completely functionally based rather than geographically based. These are important questions, which I think Parliament should have a chance to have a say on, yet not only is the Bill silent about them but the Government are silent as well. The effect of Amendment 8 is to require the Government to publish their organisational structure before the Bill can come into effect.
That is enough for the moment—I understand that other noble Lords have things to say. I will just say in advance—and I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for pre-empting her—that I have taken note of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They are not wholly aligned with my view of the role of the private sector and she will not therefore, I think, be surprised if I find myself not able to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to join this first group in Committee. I am sitting to the left of the Liberal Democrats because that is where I now find myself; I always want to be sitting behind my noble friend on the Front Bench in Committee to back him up, but I cannot do that because there is no back row in this Room, so I cannot be self-effacing in the back row. Anyway, I look forward to Committee. I do not have the experience of railways that the Minister and my noble friend speaking for the Official Opposition do—I do not pretend to that intimate knowledge of the railways—but I hope to bring something of my interest in how competition should be applied in the delivery of public services to some of the issues that we will be debating.
I turn to this group. There are a number of amendments in my name which are just about trying to find out, as I was going through the Bill, whether it works in the way described or precisely what it means. Rather in line with what my noble friend was just saying, we need to be sure that we understand that the Bill is functionally correct in the way that it works. I have just two amendments in this group.
Amendment 3 relates to the question of what must be wholly owned. As my noble friend said, Clause 1 is constructed around the proposition that Great British Railways not only must be wholly owned by the Crown but cannot be anything else. That relates to GBR itself. The purpose of Amendment 3 is to test whether that also applies to GBR companies. We do not encounter GBR companies in Clause 1, but we do subsequently as a means by which GBR will undertake its activities. This is not surprising. As my noble friend said, we do not know how GBR will be corporately structured but, by way of example, we know how Network Rail is structured. It has a significant number of wholly owned subsidiaries and quite a number of joint venture subsidiaries, including through Platform4.
For example—and here I declare my interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and others—Platform4 is a Network Rail subsidiary company that has just recently, happily, entered into an agreement with partners to develop at Cambridge North station as part of the Government’s proposal to develop around stations, with 450 homes around the station. It is a joint venture company; it is not wholly owned by Network Rail. So my starting proposition is that this prohibition on companies not being wholly owned must apply to GBR itself but cannot apply to GBR companies. I want to be sure that that is the case. If it is not absolutely clear in the statute then it ought to be, which would be the purpose of my amendment.
That differentiates the amendment from those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to which we will no doubt turn in a minute, who wants precisely that to be the case. For the reasons I have just explained about the many joint ventures for things such as housing developments and commercial developments around stations through companies such as Platform4, if I may respectfully say so before she has put her case, I do not agree with the noble Baroness that all GBR companies should be—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Recalling Questions earlier, just because we do not agree with the noble Baroness, that does not mean she cannot sometimes be right.
The other amendment in my name is Amendment 4, which relates to shadow directors. Clause 2 tells us that Ministers are not to be construed as shadow directors under the Companies Act when they make decisions. I think it is the case that, when officials act on behalf of Ministers, exactly the same provisions would apply to them. We need to be absolutely sure that this is the case, and that it applies to the officials of Scottish and Welsh Ministers as well as to those of the Secretary of State. I am looking for a bit of reassurance on that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, with the permission of the Chair, I will do something I have not done in the 13 years I have been here as a Peer. The place name in my title is “Mole Skoomb”, okay? There is a railway station at Moulsecoomb, near Brighton; in fact, it is not in Moulsecoomb but in Bevendean, which is a source of great irritation to people living in Moulsecoomb; Moulsecoomb is a mile up the road. Anyway, it is pronounced “Mole Skoom”. Thank you.
I said in my speech at Second Reading that I welcome the Bill; the Green Party has long argued that our railway should be run as a public service, not for private profit, and that is exactly where my five amendments here are going: they all make basically the same point. It was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to point out that he did not agree with me; in fact, it sort of made me feel slightly better because, worryingly, there are times when I do agree with him, so it is good to get back on our tracks.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Sorry, I did not mean that.
What I am trying to do with these five amendments is to make sure that public ownership of our railways really means public ownership. The Bill, as it currently stands, could allow companies within Great British Railways to have private shareholders. The Bill is, or should be, about bringing our railways back into public ownership, and we therefore should not be creating a back door that allows private ownership to creep in.
This is the worry that the Association of British Commuters, We Own It and Bring Back British Rail have brought to us. They and the others are asking a very simple question: what exactly do we mean when we say that Great British Railways will be publicly owned? At the moment, the answer is not clear in the Bill. The Government made a welcome commitment that all the shares in the parent company of Great British Railways would be publicly owned, but does that extend to the companies sitting beneath it?
The Bill defines a GBR company as a subsidiary within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. A subsidiary does not have to be wholly publicly owned; it can be partly owned by private investors, provided that the parent company retains control. We could have a railway where the parent company is entirely publicly owned but where companies carrying out important railway functions have private shareholders. Does that not fundamentally change what public ownership means? The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 used a much clearer definition: a public sector company had to be wholly publicly owned. The Companies Act itself provides the Government with the wording they could have used if they intended to require wholly owned subsidiaries. I think we have to ask this: why was that stronger definition not used here?
This is not helped by the Government not being clear about exactly which functions GBR companies will carry out, as the Bill gives these companies the ability to carry out potentially any GBR function. That could include train operations and infrastructure management, which leaves the door open to a very different railway in the future. In a worst-case scenario, the new definition of GBR companies as subsidiaries could even lead to the part-privatisation of rail infrastructure management—a direction of travel thought impossible in the UK since the days of Railtrack.
Railway privatisation has been a disaster: it fragmented the railways, drove up costs and put private profit ahead of passengers. We should not be creating a structure today that would enable a future Government to say, “Well, the legislation already allows private investment and we’re simply making use of the powers that Parliament has already given us”. These amendments would stop that happening. I should also say that I have not yet had the delight of meeting with the Minister, but I am sure that that is in progress.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments in this group. First, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Moylan said at the beginning about ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said that this Bill is about public ownership, but actually it is not. That was the other Bill to which she referred; this Bill is about setting up GBR as the guiding mind, bringing track and train together—however one wants to characterise it. It is not essential to the core purpose of the Bill; the ownership structure is not core to delivering the services. My noble friend Lord Moylan was right to make those points in his opening remarks.
Of the specific amendments, Amendment 2 is very pertinent. My noble friend Lord Moylan focused on the “owned by the Crown” piece, but Clause 1(3) talks about Great British Railways being
“wholly owned by the Crown”.
Even if we accept that GBR should largely be owned by the Minister—in effect, on behalf of the public—who is able to direct things, I am not sure that we should be in favour of it being “wholly owned”. There is a very good argument for having some private capital. It might be that you want to get that capital involved in the company. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to infrastructure, and we may wish to use it for that and people could have a shareholding. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, that we would wish to have some joint ventures. I will give two examples.
One of the countries whose railways people generally admire is Japan. Interestingly, people involved in the railways in Japan largely admire how we do them, as well. There is an enormous amount of cross-fertilisation between experts from both countries. They have very successfully defrayed some of the costs of running their railway by using the value of the property in which the railway system operates—on top of, below or alongside —to generate some effective retail operations and other things that generate a significant amount of money. This keeps down the cost to the taxpayer from running the railway.
Network Rail does some of those sorts of joint ventures already in developing property and that seems perfectly reasonable. Even if we accepted that running the railway piece should be publicly owned—and I do not—it would seem perfectly reasonable if Network Rail, which will now become part of GBR, wished to have some joint ventures with people who develop property and people who help to maximise the returns for the taxpayer on the assets owned by GBR. The state is frankly not very good at doing those things, which are important not just to raise revenue to defray costs but to develop and energise the economy in some of our towns and cities up and down the country. Core railway assets are often where you could develop housing and other things to redevelop areas.
To give a specific example, there was a Written Answer from the Minister recently—forgive me, but I cannot remember whether it was answered yesterday or in the previous few days—about how the Government will develop Euston station. Originally, that was going to be done by HS2, but, when I was Secretary of State, we came to the conclusion that HS2 was probably not going to make a good fist of that. At that time, the Minister was the chairman of the Euston Partnership, which brought together representatives of the Mayor of London, local authorities and private sector companies involved in developing the station. We came to the conclusion that a development-led approach would be better, in order to develop a significant amount of housing for that part of London as well as private sector office and business space, as we had done around King’s Cross and St Pancras, which has had a huge impact on the economy. But that involves working in partnership with the private sector.
I do not know how in the end the Government will structure that approach, but it seems to me that it would be sensible at least to keep open the option that, at the very least, a subsidiary of GBR could potentially own a joint venture or part of the entity involved in delivering the development, either to help to run it or to share in some of the capital gain. You may or may not wish to do that, but ruling out the ability to do that does not seem to me sensible. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment, which probes that issue, is sensible and has a lot of merit.
On the issue of private shareholders, I will make the argument just briefly, since this Bill is not about nationalisation, about where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, misunderstands the point about private companies. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, from the point of view of the consumer and the delivery of services, privatisation was for most of its life a massive success. It brought into the railways an enormous amount of private capital, new rolling stock, new services and a hugely greater number of people using the railways than had been the case under British Rail, under which passenger numbers had, frankly, been declining since the Second World War. It was a huge success.
Now, it is absolutely true that the passenger franchise model had some issues and, in fact, was effectively destroyed by the pandemic. I am not suggesting that we necessarily would have wanted to carry on with that model, but there are other models involving the private sector. For example, the way that TfL operates in London is that TfL specifies the services but, in a number of cases, it contracts with companies to run those. also, as the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Prime Minister set up the bus services that he wished to procure, but it was the private sector that delivered those. Those models seem to me perfectly sensible. If you set them up properly, the company makes money only if it delivers services that passengers require. That seems to me a very sensible model. I know that the noble Baroness does not agree with it, but I just wanted to set out how it actually works, as opposed to her characterisation of it.
The last point that I want to make is on Amendment 8, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, which talks about the organisational structure of GBR. The reason why that is important—I think we will come on to this in some of our later debates—is that it is, in effect, how you set up the organisation and, therefore, how it takes decisions and who takes the decisions within the structure.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want briefly to reflect on the various amendments that noble Lords have put forward so far this afternoon. Basically, it makes me feel very concerned, because we are lacking information, as the noble Lord said on Amendment 8 but also on many of the other ones, and we do not know what is going to happen. We do not really know who will be running infrastructure or some of the train operators and, if we ever end up with any private sector involvement, I go back to what I experienced when I was on the kind of supervisory board of Railtrack a long time ago. We used to meet every three months with the board, and you could just see that the debt that Railtrack was incurring was getting bigger and bigger. In the end, I said to the chairman, “How long are the Government going to allow you to continue with this debt?” It seemed to increase by 10% or 15% every time we had a meeting. The chairman’s response was, “Well, don’t worry, I had a meeting with the Secretary of State”—none of the former Secretaries of State are here today, so I think I am safe to say this—“and he said it will be all right”. We had a nice meal and it was fine. But the sad thing was that, within a week, not only had he got the sack, but Network Rail was closed down, because the so-called shareholders did not know what they were doing. It was yet one of the many disasters that the infrastructure manager has probably suffered over the last 30 or 40 years.
It would help me and maybe other colleagues to think of some useful criteria as to whether we think all these different elements that we will be discussing in the next seven days will be beneficial or not. What I found rather interesting was a part of a speech by the Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander, on what she saw coming from the nationalisation plan. She that it,
“requires a high performing railway to … support the creation of new jobs and new homes … improve reliability, generate better usage of our trains and reduce public subsidy”.
We can spend a lot of time talking about whether this has happened in the last year or two. If it has not, what has gone wrong? It is much too soon to see what is changing. We should in mind that, in the last three or four years, most of the passenger operators have been effectively controlled by the Department for Transport, even though they are in theory in the private sector. Network Rail, of course, is funded by the Department for Transport anyway. This is something that we need to look at, in going through all the amendments and seeing whether they will meet any of those criteria. Maybe my noble friend, when he responds, will be able to say, “I have got it completely wrong and it is all going to happen anyway”. I look forward to his comments.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for numerous meetings with me and many of my colleagues over the last few months; they have been very helpful for discussing how we can improve the Bill before us.
The dislike for this Bill was very apparent in the opening words from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The previous Government could have implemented the concession model that has been mentioned several times—it would be our preferred option—but they did not. The picture that we had painted by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, of the privatised railway does not reflect many passengers’ experience in recent years. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that I think the service started to decline before the pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated the fact that this model was not working.
The Government have a mandate for public ownership. In fact, two years ago, we debated the Act on it. I hope that we can focus in these seven days on getting the structure right and delivering for passengers, rather than revisiting the ideology behind what the Government are doing.
The amendments in this group are quite technical in some ways, and they are about the structure rather than focused on passengers. But it is important that we hear from the Government exactly why they have chosen the model that they have. The noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, in their amendments are seeking some clarity on the exact set up of Great British Railways and why this model has been chosen. It is really important to get some clarity over the status of Great British Railways’ companies, set out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in some of those examples. How will these partnerships work in practice? There is also the point around civil servants and their role. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants clarity on the subsidiaries of Great British Railways and their potential future ownership. Whatever happens in this Bill, there will still be a huge amount of private sector involvement, because the rolling stock will still be owned by private companies and there is no plan to change that. Even if everything else is fully publicly owned, there will still be a huge amount of private sector involvement through the rolling stock.
There are many ways that you could look at structuring Great British Railways. One could have been a co-operative model. An understanding from the Minister on why this was felt to be the best way to deliver the quality of the railway service that we all want to see would be helpful. I look forward to the Minister’s response and clarification on these structural amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Berkeley, for their contributions.
I will begin with Amendments 1 and 6, which would specify that the company designated as Great British Railways must be established under existing company law. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, as is the case with Network Rail and the train operating companies, GBR will be a private limited company under the Companies Act 2006. It will have its own articles of association. The Bill is constructed around this assumption. For example, Clause 3(6) makes it clear that GBR can carry out business activities by virtue of being a limited company under existing company law. If it were not a Companies Act company, this and other provisions of the Bill would not be appropriate. The alternative to a Companies Act company would be something like a royal charter corporation, such as the BBC, or a statutory corporation, such as the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. GBR is clearly neither of these, given that the Bill does not establish it as such. Body corporate is a general term under UK law, meaning an incorporated organisation, which is what GBR will be. Combined with the drafting in Clause 3(6), the Bill is clear that GBR will be a Companies Act company.
I turn to Amendments 2 and 3. Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the requirement that GBR be wholly owned by the Crown. As the noble Lord will be aware, this Government were elected with a clear mandate to nationalise the railways, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are ensuring that GBR is owned by the British people and run in their interests—not in the interests of private profit. Public ownership is key to creating a more efficient railway and a better passenger experience. It shifts the focus from profit to passengers and freight, and begins to put an end to the fragmentation and waste of the franchising system, allowing the whole industry to work together in the interests of the passenger. This approach will save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in fees and allow taxpayers’ money to be spent on things that will benefit the passenger instead.
The requirement in the Bill that GBR must be publicly owned will ensure that any future Government wanting to privatise the railways would have to seek the consent of Parliament to do so. This will put the system on exactly the same footing as it was under privatisation since—as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge, given that he is trying to repeal it—an Act of Parliament was required to bring passenger rail services back into public hands. The latest YouGov poll shows that 76% of the public think that railways should be in the public sector and only 13% think they should be in the private sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, put it so well, previous Governments could have done something about it but they did not. The railway is an asset with significant financial, economic and safety implications, so it is right that Parliament scrutinises every major change to it.
Amendment 3 would ensure that GBR’s subsidiaries do not need to be wholly owned by the Crown. I will speak more about the Government’s policy on this in a moment when I address the amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but I am pleased to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the drafting of Clause 1 already facilitates what he seeks to achieve. The requirement to be wholly owned by the Crown applies only to the parent company that is designated as GBR, not to any of its subsidiaries. For clarity, GBR subsidiaries come within the term “GBR companies”, as defined in the Bill. GBR companies are not subject to the “wholly owned” requirement, so I hope the noble Lord will see that his amendment is unnecessary.
Speaking of GBR’s subsidiaries, I will now address Amendments 5, 334, 335, 337 and 345 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She has said that she is a passionate supporter of public ownership, as we are. Her amendments would mean that GBR must wholly own all its subsidiaries for them to be considered GBR companies. As I have said before, we are committed to the private sector continuing to play a key role in the future rail sector, and this includes within GBR where appropriate. After all, the private sector can bring advantages that the public sector cannot, including greater risk appetite and additional investment that reduces the burden on the taxpayer. GBR will therefore leverage the best of both the public and the private sectors, working in close partnership with private companies, from freight and rolling stock to ticket retailing and the rail supply chain, to unlock benefits and drive growth.
The advantages of this approach were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and can already be seen in Network Rail’s successful joint ventures with the private sector, including through Platform4, a subsidiary of Network Rail which uses private sector investment to support community regeneration projects and is expected to deliver up to 40,000 new homes in the next decade through public/private joint ventures. For example, Platform4’s joint venture with Bloc Group has already secured 2,000 new rental homes near major city transport links. These types of investment would simply not be possible were I to accept the noble Baroness’s amendments. In addition, the amendments would prevent GBR from pursuing joint ventures with the devolved Governments, which I hope she agrees would not be the right outcome.
However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that, although the existing Companies Act definition of a subsidiary enables these public/private partnerships, importantly, it does not enable private sector control. Any private sector interest in a GBR company must be a minority shareholding, to ensure that the railway remains owned, controlled and operated by the public. The Government are also clear that certain aspects of the Bill, such as GBR’s access decision-making process and its ticket retailer, passenger services and vital cross-industry functions, will all remain part of the wholly publicly owned and controlled part of the business. This recognises that, while private sector investment is a great enabler of infrastructure development opportunities that can support our communities, it is not always suited to railway functions that must be run in the public interest.
Lord Harper (Con)
Before the Minister moves on, this might sound a very picky point, but it is quite important. On his point about joint ventures, he talked about the Government always having a majority stake and having control. Is a 50-50 joint venture possible? If you are a private company making an investment, there is a big difference between having a 50-50 equal partnership versus one where you are a minority shareholder. Would that be possible under the model that he set out and which is structured in the Bill?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I will write to him on that rather than say something I might regret.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before we conclude, and relevant to the point that my noble friend Lord Harper was making, I am sure that the Minister will want to look at the whole structure of Platform4 and its relationship to Great British Railways, but the Mayfield Partnership, which is involved in the regeneration around Manchester Piccadilly, has one-third Network Rail or Platform4 participation in that joint venture. So, at the moment, it is not just 50:50; it can be below 50%. It would be of interest, not least to noble Lords considering the future structure of GBR, to understand precisely how some of these large-scale and really important property development issues are to be managed by GBR. The directing mind for the railways is one thing, but the directing mind for development purposes is not necessarily the same thing.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My experience of Network Rail’s property and Platform 4 is offset by increasing age and failure to remember the details. I will not only write to noble Lords about the 50:50 aspect, but about Mayfield, which I remember vaguely is of a different percentage, partially because much of the land is owned by somebody else rather than the railway. I will write on both those points, because I think they are germane. I appreciate the point that people need to understand how this will work in practice, particularly with those areas of activity of GBR that are not the provision of passenger railway services or the basic railway.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before I start, may I add to the comment made by my noble friend Lord Lansley? My example is not a Network Rail example, but a TfL one, with which the Minister will be very familiar: the Earl’s Court development. The essential structure is that the initial ownership of the joint venture was based on the value of the land that each party was contributing, but that the TfL structure would fall well below 50% over the course of time, as more investment was added by the private sector partner. Structures such as that would simply not be possible for Great British Railways land under this Bill, because you could not go below the 50%. So, a site such as Earl’s Court, if it were a national Network Rail site— pari passu, mutatis mutandis—would of course remain undeveloped until the Government found the money to develop it. The Government will never find the money to develop these things.
Turning to the debate that we have just had, I must say that, whenever I speak in Committee, I always seem unwittingly and unintentionally to attract the disappointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I am surprised about this, because the only reference I made to her in the course of my speech was to say something complimentary about amendments that she has tabled, which we will debate later in Committee and to which I have added my name. Obviously, I am at fault in some way, in that I am constantly giving her cause for complaint.
On the question of organisational structure, the Minister has read out some words about how Network Rail will be organised, but they do not provide a level of assurance or satisfaction that people are looking for. They are very woolly, but I will leave that and grant him that for the moment; he can stick with that level of woolliness. However, let us switch focus slightly and think about timing. When I spoke on the then passenger railway services Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Government were embarking on a very long multi-year transformation process. Here we are, two years later, and we still have not completed that. We are at least six months away, I should guess, from seeing the enactment of this necessary legislation. That is two and a half years on.
Transforming an organisation as complex as Network Rail and all the companies being brought into this group is something that is going to take years. So let me change the question: is the Minister able to say, before we conclude this debate, at what time he expects that structure to be in place, which he has described to us even in woolly terms?
Just to develop that a little further, it is said throughout the industry, although it is acknowledged that nobody has written this down, that the intended designation date for Great British Railways is October 2027, which is 12 months from now—say, six months after the enactment of the Bill, if it goes through in its current form, according to its current plans. Is that date valid? Does the Minister believe that the structure that he has described in whatever woolly terms will be in place in time for that designation date, or is it all going to muddle on for years afterwards, being put in place?
Finally, on the second important point that we have discussed in this short debate, I express my gratitude to—I am going to say this correctly now—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Kudos! But do not minute that in Hansard. I am very grateful to her because she put her finger on one of the key issues in this group, which is the question of the justification for private ownership. She has said, effectively, that it is party policy, in her case, and she is going to stick to it, for that reason if not for others as well. But we did not get a clear answer from the Minister to my question: what is his justification for wholesale nationalisation for the purpose of achieving his objectives, which could have been achieved by a Williams report approach? It is wholly irrelevant whether the last Government did anything about it, for heaven’s sake—what is the point of making a comment like that? The last Government were all over the place; that is why they lost the election. Is that the standard that the Minister is setting for the Government, that they are just about better than Sunak? Is that it? Is that the point of making that remark?
The Minister has one further opportunity to give us a clear explanation. The only explanation that he has given is that it is in the manifesto. If that is the sole explanation, that is very helpful to us, because knowing that there is no rational basis for the decision makes it very much easier for an incoming Government to advance the argument that the necessary measures should be taken at pace to reverse it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, first, the operative date for Great British Railways will be sometime in 2027, but of course it depends on the passage of this Bill. Secondly, I can give a very sound explanation for being in favour of public ownership, which is that progressively, as we have taken recent train operating companies into public ownership, we have been able to put both the track and infrastructure and the operations into the management of the same person. That is delivering results that no previous arrangement for over 30 years has been able—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Why, if that is such a good thing, are there fewer and fewer services?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I shall continue with what I was saying. It has not been possible, in any previous iteration of the railways since the early 1990s, to have both under the same control. There was such an arrangement with South Western Railway in the 2010s, and it collapsed, because the commercial arrangements were incompatible. We are making steady progress in improving the railway in some pretty difficult circumstances, in companies that had not been particularly well managed, as a consequence of being able to manage them together. To my mind, that is a very good reason for public ownership.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before we proceed, under the chairmanship now of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, it probably behoves me to say that this is the first group in the first of seven days in Committee. There were six minutes’ worth of summation, and I point out to all Members of the Committee that the Companion is very clear about brevity being the quality we are looking for when Members who have lead amendments are summing up, whether they are pressing or whatever else. I urge Committee Members to bear that in mind for future groups.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy, in so far as that is directed at me, to bear it in mind. Of course, I could be quicker in challenging the Minister when I sum up. I am not summing up, of course; I am actually testing him on his response to the points I made in moving my amendment. I would be a great deal quicker if he had properly addressed them to my satisfaction in the course of his speech. When Ministers do that, I shall of course be briefer. But, if the Minister does not do that, then, with every respect to the noble Lord, I shall take exactly as long as is needed, because we are in Committee and those rules do not apply. I will not be curtailed. After all, thanks to the noble Lord and the Whips, we have five hours, not four, to play with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
It sounds like I have missed the best bit.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The noble Lord should stop waving his hands around like that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw Amendment 1?
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg your pardon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Purpose of Great British Railways(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,(e) expanding and improving the network, including services and connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,(g) supporting economic growth and national productivity, and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance, (i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and(m) supporting multi-modal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak, with my customary brevity, to Amendment 7 and to open the debate on this second group. I have a large number of amendments in this group, so I shall speak only briefly to each of them because I do not want to provoke any noble Lords to start waving their hands at me again, which is only intended to distract and does not promote debate.
Although Amendment 7 starts the group, I intend to return to it towards the end of my remarks. I will start with Amendment 9, which may appear to be pernickety, but I will explain it to noble Lords, many of whom will know that I have a background in local government. But it is not entirely a local government matter; it applies to legislation more broadly. We are well familiar with the notion of powers. Local government is given powers to do things, and so is the Secretary of State periodically. We are also familiar with the notion of duties—we are clear what the distinction is—which can be placed on local government and, similarly, on the Secretary of State. I do not claim huge experience, but I have never come across the question of functions, and I do not understand what a function is. It is sloppy drafting. Is a function a legal power? We understand what that is. Is it a duty? When does a function slip over into being a duty, and vice versa?
But then I go to a second level of refinement. Clause 3 refers to the “general functions” of Great British Railways. If I am unclear what a function is, I am doubly unclear what a general function is. It could be that this is a fuzzy notion—it is a general thing and we are not quite clear what it is—in which case it is not very satisfactory as a piece of legislation. Or it could seek to set out a hierarchy of functions, where these are the general functions and there are other more minor functions that sit under them but have to conform to, contribute to and be ancillary to the general functions. Is that what “general functions” is meant to mean, or is the word “general” simply redundant? I ask because later the Bill refers to “the functions” of Great British Railways on several occasions and the expression “general functions” never reappears.
I suspect that this is not a very complex issue. I suspect it is just sloppy drafting. But we cannot put up with that—we need to know what is meant by functions, how many duties are being imposed on Great British Railways that we can hold it to account for, how many powers are being given to it by statute that it has to explain and justify using or not, and whether “general” is creating a hierarchy with subordinate functions that must comply or not. I do not think this will necessarily be settled today; it is very likely that we will come back to this so that we really understand what the Bill is doing.
Amendment 13 would exclude rail safety advice and standards from Great British Railways. Under Clause 3(1)(g), Great British Railways will be
“publishing advice and standards on matters related to railways and railway services”.
I really do not know why it is doing this. Publishing advice and standards is normally the function of either a regulator or an independent standards board. I do not know why Great British Railways is doing this. In so far as it is doing it to itself, that is okay. I have no objection to its setting internal standards. However, my Amendment 14 says that it should not be able to create standards and issue advice to non-GBR actors on the Great British Railways network. Internal standards are no problem, but if standards are to be set then they should be set by an independent board, a regulator or the ORR.
Finally on this point, Amendment 13 would exclude safety standards entirely from that scope. I say this because safety on British railways has been at a very high standard and it is a common view that the role of the Office of Rail and Road as safety regulator has been an important contributor to that. I do not want to see its role diluted, and I do not know anybody in the industry who does. The danger here is that the power being given to GBR to set standards implicitly for other people operating on the railways, implicitly including safety standards, creates a tension with the role of the ORR that can be only destructive of and damaging to the effectiveness and reputational safety of Great British Railways.
Amendment 18 relates back to the question of functions. It would remove the Secretary of State’s power to confer additional railway-related functions on Great British Railways. If it requires an Act of Parliament to set up the general functions of Great British Railways, why should we want to give the Secretary of State the undiluted, unrestricted power to create new functions to add to them? I do not think this is the correct way of doing it. If there is a requirement for further functions in future, it should at the very least be done by statutory instrument, if the power is to be granted at all.
I turn to Amendment 80. My noble friend Lord Grayling, with his very considerable experience of the railways from being Transport Secretary, has tabled a number of amendments but unfortunately is unable to be in the House this week. But I have signed Amendment 80 in its support, so I will speak to it. It is slightly out of place in this group, but we will come back to this topic eventually.
The amendment would require that charges imposed by Great British Railways for certain railway services are “reasonable”. Who can object to that? Who would want charges that are not reasonable? But that is not the power given to Great British Railways by the Bill. The power to make these charges is relatively unconstrained— I agree that it may be constrained by competition law—and would, in effect, allow GBR to set charges as it sees fit. That is too much latitude; the power should be constrained by the necessity for charges to be reasonable.
Amendment 81 is, in fact, in my name, but is close to the previous one. It would give to an individual—it might be a company—who is aggrieved by the charge, term or conditions imposed by Great British Railways a right of appeal to the Office of Rail and Road. Again, who would think that this very modest constraint on the absolute discretion of Great British Railways could be anything other than reasonable and necessary? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am keen not to be seen as a support act to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, although some of my remarks might echo points that he made in the previous group.
Amendment 15 would place on Great British Railways a duty to act as a single employer for the staff transferring into it from Network Rail and the train operating companies, as they move into public ownership. The starting point is that the Bill is silent on this question. It creates Great British Railways and sets out its functions, and it deals in some detail with the machinery of transfer, but says nothing about who will employ the people who run the railway. There are well over 100,000 people involved: more than 40,000 are directly employed by Network Rail and there are more than 60,000 across the train operating companies. They are no clearer today about who their employer will be than they were before the Bill was published.
This matters more than it might appear. The operators are coming into public ownership on a staggered basis, contract by contract, over several years. The uncertainty is therefore not settled by a single moment of transition; it is spread out and repeated. Staff in one company would inevitably draw conclusions from what happens in another. In the absence of a stated employment model, people will assume the least favourable one: that subsidiary companies will be retained, terms and conditions will diverge and the integrated railway will turn out to be a holding company with much of the same fragmentation underneath it. I hope that this is not what the Government plan.
The founding document here is Getting Britain Moving. Those interested in the reason for putting the railways into public ownership would find their time well served by consulting that document, which addresses the issues in contention today. That document was explicit that Great British Railways would be “a new, single employer” and that the workforce would be treated
“as an asset to be nurtured rather than a cost to be cut”.
That was a clear commitment, and these amendments asked for it to be put in the Bill or, failing that, restated from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will principally refer to my Amendment 19 in this group. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that I am not really in a position to comment on the points he makes, but I think the discussion we had previously about the corporate and organisational structure of Great British Railways gives force to his points about how the employment of the railways will be structured in future, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.
I want to make a quick point on the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moylan about creating a purpose clause for the Bill. Generally speaking, I am in favour of purpose clauses where we are not principally legislating in order to change existing legislation where the purposes are already set out. This Bill will effectively get rid of the purpose set out at the front of the Railways Act 1993 and therefore I think it is a pity that there is no purpose clause at the front of this legislation to tell us what we are trying to achieve. In my view, that is distinct, as I think my noble friend was saying, from simply a description of what Great British Railways is going to do and what it should think about.
Paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Notes sets out the view that the purpose can be defined simply by what the functions of Great British Railways are and what it must have regard to under the general duties. But functions and duties are not in themselves sufficient to constitute purpose. For my money, I would have been in favour of drafting a purpose clause up front as Clause 1 that would have told us what we are trying to achieve. I think that makes for rather good drafting these days.
I will get down into the nitty-gritty now with Amendment 19 in my name. It relates to Clause 3 where, just as the functions have been set out for Great British Railways, there is an interesting moment where the functions are replaced by a little subsection that tells us what the “statutory functions” are to be. These are all the functions that we have just been told about and the ones that the Secretary of State might give Great British Railways at any time in the future, but not anything relating to service facilities or the supply of services under the 2016 regulations. That sent me off to look at the 2016 regulations to see what the service facilities and the supply of services are. I will minimise it for the purposes of this debate; essentially, on the one hand it is provision of access to freight and international traffic by an infrastructure manager under the access rights, and then supply of service facilities is essentially service providers giving, again, freight, other railway undertakings and international access to services—things from stations, depots and so on.
Interestingly, as far as I can see, those bits relating to access to the infrastructure and the provision of services in the 2016 regulations are intended to be substantially replaced by the access policies set out in Clause 59. But Regulations 5 and 6 and Schedule 2, I think, of the 2016 regulations are not to be repealed. The interesting thing is that Great British Railways will be expressly taken out of the definition of an infrastructure manager, so it will not have the requirements to provide access to infrastructure or to provide services implied by Regulations 5 and 6, even though they remain in place.
In a sense, this is a probing issue. Who will take the responsibility for the provision of infrastructure to freight and international if it is not Great British Railways? With supply of services, for things such as stations and depots, if it is not Great British Railways which has a responsibility for providing those services and the minimum access package specified in Regulation 6 of the 2016 regulations, whose responsibility is it? It is not set out in this Bill. All we know from this Bill, as a result of Clause 70, is that it is not Great British Railways. Then who is it? Who will do those things?
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these probing amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response to some very important general issues. It is right that the staff in all the operating companies that will be affected by this should have an early idea from the Government about what is planned for their future employment.
I am one of those who welcome the idea that we want a well-paid profession serving on the railways, but for the sake of taxpayers, who are putting in substantial grant in aid and capital money, and of fare-paying passengers, who often have to pay very high fares, we need a system for negotiation between staff and Great British Railways which is more likely to achieve the increase in productivity that could justify the higher pay for staff without imposing an ever-higher charge on the taxpayer and fare-paying passengers. This is more than a detail that can be left open; we need to know who the employer will be, what the status of the current contracts is and how they will be put into transition to new contracts for the staff when their employment changes.
Is there anything the Government can tell us about how they might—they hope—have better relations with the unions in future so that we can look forward to a better experience in getting that balance of better pay for better delivery, smarter working, adopting work practices and being willing to operate new capital investment in a way that delivers higher productivity and higher quality of service?
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Moylan’s draft of what the purposes should and could be, which may not entirely match all the Government’s aims. It would be interesting to hear from the Government which of his suggestions are intended or implied in the current legislation, so that we can have some early indication of what the mission statement of the new railway might be.
I think taxpayers and railway users are expecting more services, not fewer. That has not been the early experience of the last two years. They are expecting better punctuality and timeliness, which would also be welcome. What the new railway will definitely require is more feel for where more passenger movements are required or possible. As in the early days of privatisation, surely the early days of full nationalisation might want to achieve a trend of rising passenger numbers, which privatisation achieved very well, and the ability of companies to develop timetables and services more suited to modern travel needs and therefore fuel the continuing progress of providing more growth in passengers and revenue.
If a new railway management—the controlling mind of GBR—knows how to do that, it will make everything a lot easier if the background of the completion of these arrangements is rising passenger use, rising revenues, greater flexibility over timetables and thinking about growth rather than cost cutting and the elimination of less profitable routes. That can easily get you into a spiral of downturn, as with the nationalised railway experience for most of its time post war, until privatisation reversed those difficult trends.
I hope that the Minister will not rule out one of the modest successes of recent years, which is the ability to have a competitive challenge to the monopolist. There are times when people outside will see ways of harnessing people, talent and capital to provide additional and better service using the existing track, and for that they will clearly need fair terms for access, and that will provide an innovative stimulus to the nationalised monopoly. However, I fear that the Government will not want to do that, and so I think they will find it that much more difficult to innovate and improve the timetables without that stimulus or spur from others generating such ideas and providing such a challenge and opportunity for the growth of the railway.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 305 in this group. Noble Lords may think that Amendment 305 is a long way away from where we started in this group, but it is here. My amendment refers to Clause 87, which provides for a charge for removing road vehicles from railway property—let us call it that before going into too much detail. It seemed to me that, if the Government thought this was a good idea, they should extend it to dealing financially with the very many lorries these days which hit bridges and cause endless delays not just to road traffic but to passengers and freight.
Network Rail’s website on what it calls “bridge bashing” says that, in the year from April 2024 to March 2025, there were 1,666 bridge strikes. Over five years, there were 8,300. Of course, some bridges get it all the time and others do not. Network Rail says that it costs it £23 million to repair every year. That seems quite cheap, but that is not really the point. Who pays? One other statistic is that it causes the equivalent of 120 days’ delay for rail passengers or freight.
It occurs to me that either the driver or owner of the lorry or truck—it is usually a truck or bus—should be required to fund not just the cost of remedial work but some compensation for delay to the rail and road traffic. This has been going on for years, and I suppose I and many others have been saying to Network Rail that it has to do something about this. It is putting up all kinds of barriers, warning signs and everything, and it is doing a great job of it.
However, I think this amendment would be very helpful. The Government want to charge people for parking on railway property. I think it says in the Bill that a road vehicle includes a “bicycle or other conveyance”. If they are even going to charge me for parking my bicycle at the station, they can surely charge the lorries or the buses which do a great deal of damage. My noble friend will probably say that the wording in my amendment needs improvement, and I am very happy to look at improving it, but it seems to me that something needs to be done to make the status of the relationship between road vehicles and trains a bit more equitable.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will start by referring to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked to, because it just so happened that, as I was travelling to London yesterday, a car struck a bridge at Burnham. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is nodding; perhaps he was on the same train. The reason why it is important is that, although there was, I think, no significant damage to the bridge, the train was significantly late, which meant that every single person on it was entitled under the Delay Repay scheme to a significant refund of their fare. It was not the only train affected; lots of trains were. The cost to the taxpayer of that single incident was probably very significant, and it does not seem unreasonable that the insurance company of the person who struck the bridge should have to reimburse the taxpayer for the cost of that significant damage. Having had that experience yesterday, I am instinctively supportive of that amendment.
Before I talk about the other amendments in this group, I will make a teensy defence of the Sunak Administration, given what my noble friend Lord Moylan said, and since I was a member of it; I will not make an extensive one because that is not the purpose for which we are here. On this specific issue, we got the Williams review, which my noble friend referred to, and then we set in train the work that has, in effect, come to fruition with this Bill, in starting the process of setting up GBR. A lot of the preparatory work took place when we were in government, and there is a lot of agreement, I think, between how we would have done it and how the Minister is doing it today. The big difference, of course, is on the ownership of the companies but, in terms of bringing together a guiding mind—however one wishes to describe it—and a more seamless operation of track and train, that is certainly something that we intended to do and we started the process. That is my bit of a defence of what we did when we were in government.
Let me now address the amendments, starting with Amendment 7, and Clause 3. The problem with purpose clauses and a list of functions is the danger of what parliamentary draftsmen call undue specificity: as soon as you have a list, you then have a question about whether you are allowed to do the things that are not on the list. In his list, my noble friend Lord Moylan has things that are not in the Government’s list of functions, such as
“providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers”.
But in neither of the lists is what we have talked about: the work that Network Rail currently does, and GBR will continue to do, not just on operating passenger services or facilitating freight services but on maximising the benefit of its property portfolio—not only to generate revenue to offset the cost of providing rail services but to generate a significant amount of economic development and growth in significant parts of the country, as my noble friend Lord Lansley mentioned. The Government are woefully behind their housebuilding targets, but one of their priorities is developing housing around railway stations, and some of that land will be owned by Network Rail and, in due course, GBR. In relation to the amendment, I ask the Minister whether the functions set out in the Bill are sufficiently extensive to give GBR the powers it needs to do its work.
I also want to speak to Amendment 12, and the linked Amendments 80 and 81, on fair and non-discriminatory decisions, which it is important to put in the legislation. GBR will now make important decisions about access for private freight companies to the network, open access operators and—I will not labour this point here, because we will come to it in the next group—ticketing. Unlike the ORR, which did not have any skin in the game, GBR will be making decisions on, for example, freight access or open access, so it will be both a decision-maker and a provider of services, which are in competition. That is also true for ticket retailing. When it makes those decisions, it should have a legal duty to do so in a fair and non-discriminatory way, which is why I support the amendment. It would have two effects: it would govern how GBR operates and it would provide the opportunity for others to challenge it if it does not behave in that way.
Amendments 80 and 81 are linked, because they are about the charges that GBR can make for services where it is a monopoly supplier and, therefore, people do not have any choices. Amendment 81 would provide an appeal mechanism if it charges in a way that people do not think is reasonable. Both amendments would be very sensible to ensure that it behaves in a reasonable way.
There are two other amendments I want to comment on. Amendment 15, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, set out, sounds sensible on the face of it, but I will just flag three issues with it. First, when you move employers, there are potentially pension implications. I understand that the company that provides pensions to rail workers has flagged the time that will be required to do the pensions transition in a sensible way. We have seen in other areas of the public sector that, if you get that wrong, it can cause significant issues.
The second issue is one that we have seen, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, touched on in his remarks. I suspect that, at the moment, because these are all separate companies, there will be a range of pay structures. We have already seen this—as have the Government, to their own cost—in what they are doing with NHS England. They originally said that they wanted to bring NHS England and all its staff into the Department of Health and Social Care. As they set out on that process, because people in NHS England are in many cases paid significantly more than people in the Department of Health and Social Care, they have discovered either that they cannot do it or that doing it would be very expensive or require the Secretary of State or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to sign off the move of every single employee above a certain pay band. They have discovered that it is all very complicated, and they are effectively having to do the NHS England/DHSC change in a different way. If you stick everyone in a single company and you have to equalise all their pay and conditions, my concern is that if you do it in a downwards direction, it would clearly not be advantageous to those employees who lose out, but if you do it in an upwards direction then it is clearly damaging for the taxpayer, who has to pay all this increased cost without getting any productivity.
I want to flag one final thing, but will not go into it at length because we have a later group some way down where we will cover it in more detail. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, slightly gave the game away when he referred to a letter from the RMT’s parliamentary group: the point of this is to have a single national rail employer so that the trade unions can increase their power and once again be able to deliver national rail strikes, closing down the entire railway network, which they have not been able to do with different rail operating companies, as you could not have a strike in one of them in response to a dispute at another. People should be very clear: if there is a single employer—I have some amendments to test this—we will be back in the days where we have national rail strikes and increase the bargaining power of those trade unions. The experience over history is that that power is not used for the benefit of the passenger and customer but to extract money from the taxpayer. That would be a very damaging thing. I flag that now, but will not go into it in any more detail as I will come back to it later.
Finally, very briefly, I am attracted to Amendment 20 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The only point I would make to her, as I think I said at Second Reading, is that the reason why, when I was Secretary of State, I set up a freight target—there is reference to a freight target in the Bill—was to try to balance the fact that all the conversations we have about railways are always about passengers. The reason for the freight target was to slightly rebalance the conversation and have more of a level playing field. My worry is that, if you put the passenger target in the Bill, you reweight it back towards being all about passengers again. I absolutely agree with her that we want to increase the number of passengers and reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but the reason for having the freight target was to slightly rebalance and have more of a level playing field.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 20 and 110 would require Great British Railways to increase passengers on the railways and to set a passenger target, rather like the freight target, which has just been referred to. One could easily argue that this is not necessary, as any Government will want the railway to grow and passengers and freight to increase. Yet that is not necessarily the case. The Bill currently does not create a clear statutory duty to grow passenger use or to set measurable targets. The reform of the railway should not simply be to stabilise the current system as it is; it should be to actively grow demand and ensure access to the network to support the shift to sustainable modes of transport.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Harper, for their contributions.
I start with Amendment 7, which would introduce a purpose for GBR into the Bill. The Bill already provides a purpose for GBR, just as we promised the Liberal Democrats it would during the passage of the public ownership Act. The Bill’s purpose is set out through its functions and duties. The functions tell us what GBR must do, and the duties tell us what GBR must consider and achieve while doing it. Much like the noble Lord’s amendment, the duties provide a list of objectives for GBR, which it must bear in mind when undertaking every decision and its railway activity.
I hope the noble Lord can see that the duties are in fact similar to the breadth of outcomes his amendment is seeking. The duties already require GBR to prioritise the needs of passengers and disabled passengers; to consider value for money, high standards of performance including reliability, social and economic benefits, and the environment; to grow freight; and to advance the public interest. We do not need a new purpose clause to provide GBR with these objectives: the Bill already does so.
Unlike the proposed purpose clause, the functions and duties are supported by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, which will also provide clear long-term objectives. That strategy is how Ministers will communicate to GBR what it should consider while planning, expanding and improving the network over the next 30 years, and GBR will develop its own pipeline of projects in response to that. Rather than a static requirement in the Bill which is not set in the context of wider priorities or funding expectations, we have a system that might actually work better to make our railway better. Instead of setting out a clear purpose, the proposed new clause duplicates many of the provisions already in the Bill, making outcomes less clear and, overall, less likely to be deliverable.
Amendment 9 is seeking clarification of what “general” means. A general function is an umbrella term for an activity which a body can undertake by doing lots of different things. For example, running passenger services involves a large number of intermediate actions such as procuring and operating rolling stock, employing train drivers and other staff, and selling tickets. The Bill requires GBR to run passenger services as a general function, and it therefore does not prescribe exactly what actions it should take in which order to do that.
In comparison, a specific function would be an individual action that the Bill requires GBR to do at a certain point or in a certain way. An example of this would be the requirement on GBR to draft and issue the access and use policy in Clause 59. This is a specific requirement to kick off the access process and not a general function.
The term “general” is therefore helpful in distinguishing between a specific activity that GBR is required to perform and the continuing business of GBR in running the railways. I assure the noble Lord that functions are a standard drafting approach, used also, for example, in the Communications Act 2009, the Climate Change Act and others. I hope that this explanation provides the clarity that the noble Lord seeks and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister would be so good, this really is very important. I did not think he would adopt that approach, but it is one of the two approaches I offered him, and he has chosen to adopt that which says that this is essentially hierarchical, so that the general functions set out in the Bill subsume a whole load of subsidiary and ancillary functions. I am still not clear whether these functions are powers or duties. Does GBR have some choice over whether to carry out these functions—in which case, they would be akin to powers—or is it obliged to do so?
My key question, now that we have established that, is this: to carry out a general function, there are a whole load of subsidiary and ancillary functions you may have to carry out. I understand that completely, and the Minister did not have to give examples, but he did very helpfully. Is the functionality, so to speak, of Great British Railways therefore limited to the functions set out in this clause? In other words, can it do anything else or is it limited to doing the things that are general functions here? Does it have the power to carry out any other activity? These are really important questions, which may end up being tested in court. I know he has quoted some examples but, because generally unfamiliar language is being used, it is unclear to me whether we are talking about the general functions being the full scope of GBR’s activities or not.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I am at least clear about this. The functions are more like powers; the duties are the things that GBR must do when doing the functions, but it is not limited to those general functions. Indeed, we have already discussed quite extensively what it might do, for example, in property development and with third parties, which, because it is a Companies Act company, it can do. I think that is reasonably clear. I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord in more detail, because I think we are getting tied up in nomenclature. I think it is reasonably clear what GBR’s functions are, which are described in Clause 3; it describes running the railways. It is also clear that, in the process of running the railway and because of its activity, it is able to do a number of other things.
Let me carry on to Amendment 12, if I may. Amendment 12 would require GBR’s functions to facilitate the provision and use of railway services to be carried out in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. I absolutely agree that GBR should act fairly; however, the duties in the Bill already require GBR to act in the interest of the public, taxpayers, passengers and freight customers. GBR will act fairly in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions. We will no doubt discuss this more when we discuss ticket retailing and access. For now, suffice it to say, there are already protections in the Bill—and indeed in wider statutes, such as public law principles and the Competition Act, which applies in full to Great British Railways—that will require GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. This additional requirement would duplicate only the Competition Act requirements, adding uncertainty and administrative burden without increasing protection for non-GBR operators.
Amendments 13 and 14 relate to the publishing of advice and standards for the railways. I thank the noble Lord for this probing amendment, and I reassure him that the ORR is the sole safety regulator for the railway. The Bill does not transfer the ORR’s safety regulatory functions to GBR, nor does it change the current railway safety regime at all. The ORR will continue to exercise its independent safety, regulatory and enforcement functions, including its ability to ensure that GBR and other operators comply fully with all safety legislation requirements.
Comparatively, GBR’s function to publish standards is a reference to technical standards, which GBR would publish and share with industry as a method of promoting best practice. This is similar to today; at present, Network Rail and the train operating companies develop and publish technical standards covering many aspects of their operation. These standards include operation and maintenance protocols, design specifications and engineering guidelines. This does not in any way prevent it adhering to the ORR’s safety regime, which it is required by law to comply with. This also does not give GBR any remit over safety regulation. The standards are non-binding and designed simply to support shared learning across the industry.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is talking about standards created by GBR. Can he explain the relationship between what GBR does and the Rail Safety and Standards Board?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I think I can. The RSSB, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, creates standards applicable across the railway generally on some subjects, whereas there are a number of more technical standards—for example, for pieces of machinery, trains and railway infrastructure—which GBR, as a successor to Network Rail, would publish. These are not subject to discussion at the RSSB. Train operating companies also do this with specific fleets of trains, so I think there is a difference. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the RSSB’s function to do that as well, but that does not exclude the current activities of Network Rail and train operating companies, which will translate into Great British Railways.
These standards include operation and maintenance protocols, design specifications and engineering guidelines. This does not in any way prevent it adhering to the ORR safety regime, which it is required by law to comply with. It also does not give GBR any remit over safety regulation. The standards are non-binding and designed simply to support shared learning across the industry.
Lord Lansley (Con)
That just begs the question of why in Clause 70—perhaps we can discuss it before we arrive at that point—Great British Railways has been taken out of the definition of being an infrastructure manager for the purposes of access rights under the 2000 regulations.
While I have the Committee’s attention for a moment, my noble friend was asking what functions Great British Railways can undertake. The clause makes it clear that the statutory functions are distinct from those things that Great British Railways can do as a company. Some of the things that we are discussing, such as property development, are things that it is doing as a company. However, we have to bear in mind, and the Minister will tell me if I am wrong about this, that we go on to hear about the Secretary of State giving directions and guidance to Great British Railways. That is in relation to its statutory functions, so, by definition, it will not extend to the actions that GBR undertakes as a company. We need to be aware that there is that territory called being a company, which is outside the scope of the Secretary of State’s directions and guidance.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I refute that comment, for the avoidance of doubt and for the record.
The noble Lord is correct. It is an important distinction. As I said, let me meet him on that. He referred to Clause 70. I am not equipped to go into that just now, as he will appreciate, so I will talk to him further about it.
Amendment 18 removes the delegated power to add to the list of functions for GBR. While the functions listed in Clause 3 cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake as the directing mind for the railways, it is sensible to provide the flexibility to add functions should the railways change significantly enough to warrant a new function being added—for example, due to technological development, such as in the artificial intelligence space.
This power is not expected to be used frequently, if at all, but it future-proofs the Bill in the event that new activities need to be brought within the scope of the functions. Bringing an activity within the functions in the Bill has several benefits, including that the function then becomes subject to GBR’s duties and ORR’s monitoring. This legislation is expected to govern the railways for a long time, as the 1993 Act did, so this is a responsible and sensible power. This power was also reviewed by the Delegated Powers Committee, which deemed it acceptable and did not draw it to the attention of the House in its report on the Bill—I welcome the report and look forward to responding to it formally in due course. The power cannot be used to change or remove functions and is subject to the affirmative resolution. It is also not unprecedented: the National Health Service Act 2006 allows functions to be added to special health authorities via regulations. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press this amendment.
Amendments 20 and 110 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, relate to passenger growth. I very much agree with her that growing passenger numbers on the railways is vital. It supports economic growth, jobs and homes, encourages modal shift and can reduce the level of taxpayer subsidy required for the railways. However, GBR’s general duties in Clause 18 already include a duty to promote not only the interests of passengers but potential passengers. This already requires GBR to consider how best to encourage new users on to the railways. GBR’s business plan will also reflect the Government’s ambitions for passenger growth, including measurable outcomes against which GBR can be held to account.
GBR’s other duties, including promoting high performance, such as reliability and punctuality, will also contribute to making the railways more appealing to passengers. Transport Focus recently found reliability to be the single most important issue for passengers. GBR will be able to improve reliability by making better, whole-system decisions on issues such as the choreography of maintenance works.
As a commercially minded organisation, GBR will also be naturally incentivised to attract more people to travel by rail, because increasing passenger numbers will increase its own revenue. By contrast, there is no intrinsic motivation for GBR to increase rail freight when there is limited network capacity and freight services are in the clear minority of services. That is why the Bill already includes a freight duty and a freight target, to ensure that freight is given equal weight to passengers in a system where passengers may have naturally taken priority otherwise. A stronger or additional passenger equivalent duty or target could actually undermine our ambitions on freight. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that would not be the right outcome.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
Before the noble Lord moves on, he has not really addressed the point that I made, which is that in Clause 18 there is a perverse incentive that somebody coming in with a different mindset from many of us in this Room could reduce the frequency of trains and hike up fares and still meet what is in this legislation. Even if the noble Lord does not agree with my amendment about a passenger target, and I accept the debate on that, can the Government agree to look at whether some other wording could be put in to strengthen this and make sure that this legislation does what we all want, which is to see more passengers on the railway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The obligations placed on GBR by the long-term rail strategy, and the consequent approval by the Secretary of State of the business plan, should adequately deter Great British Railways from seeking to achieve that by diminishing services. Indeed, there was an example in the franchising era of the Government being loose with their definition of train services, only to discover that the franchisee had, remarkably, reduced the subsidy by withdrawing a number of services on rural branch lines. That clearly would not be possible with a decent long-term rail strategy and a consequent business plan to which a Government should agree.
Amendments 80 and 81 relate to the Clause 13 provision allowing GBR to charge for its functions. I agree that GBR must act reasonably while setting charges, and I assure the noble Lord that there are already safeguards in the Bill to ensure that charges are reasonable. GBR has a duty to ensure that railway service providers, such as other operators, can plan, invest and make decisions about their own businesses, so GBR must set charges that are consistent with this and do not undermine other people’s ability to run viable and successful businesses.
Competition law will apply to GBR, ensuring that charges it sets are not anti-competitive. In this context, an additional reasonableness test is duplicative without delivering any material additional protection. It is also important that GBR can recover appropriate costs from those who access and benefit from the services it provides. If it were prevented from doing so, the burden would ultimately fall on the taxpayer and passengers.
Amendment 81 would provide an appeal route. All I say to the noble Lord is that an appeal route to the ORR across every possible charge that GBR could levy is disproportionate. I have already mentioned the safeguards in existing law to ensure that those charges are fair.
On the private sector growth target referred to in Amendment 114, nothing in the Bill seeks to exclude or marginalise the contribution of the private sector, but I do not agree that a statutory target is the right approach. The Bill is absolutely an opportunity for the supply chain, but in that case, we have to let the market determine its contribution.
On Amendment 305 from my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I assure him that existing legal rules already allow railway operators to seek recovery of costs and other losses through civil law. A substantial amount of cost recovery is achieved already, and the limit to it is to do not with legal powers but with the identification of perpetrators who drive off. Given what I have set out, I encourage noble Lords and noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I begin with a craven apology to my noble friend Lord Harper for my comments about the Sunak Government. For the avoidance of doubt, had the last general election been fought solely on the question of his conduct of the office of Secretary of State for Transport, I am sure the result would have been very different and more favourable to the Conservative cause.
I will not refer here at any length to the question of functions, except to say that it is a mess. At the end of this debate, everybody in the Room who has thought about it can probably see that it is a mess. However, the Minister kindly offered me a meeting to discuss this, and I think my noble friend Lord Lansley is now very much included in that invitation, and possibly other noble Lords. I ask that that meeting takes place reasonably promptly as these issues will return at later stages in Committee rather than being left to the end of Committee and rushed through just ahead of Report. A sensible meeting on that could be very valuable.
I will comment about the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I do not agree that there should be a single employer as such, although I think there will be one because I think the unions will get their way. My noble friend Lord Harper explained the danger to the public of going down that route. I fully expected—and was disappointed—that the noble Lord, given his background, would refer to the difficulty with pensions, particularly the fact that all these organisations currently have individual pension schemes within the Railway Pensions Scheme. Is the Minister satisfied that it will be possible, in the timescale he is working towards—namely, the designation of GBR in the second half of next year—for the Railway Pension Scheme trustees and Railpen to achieve a smooth and lawful transition of pension arrangements in that time? He may not be able to answer that question now, but we must find some way of coming back and discussing this because pensions are a very important aspect of the remuneration of the employees.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise quite nervously as I am definitely not a rail expert, this group of amendments is not really about the railways and the room is full of people who are huge rail enthusiasts. There are quite a lot of amendments in this group and they all, I think, aim to do the same thing, which is to make sure that in creating Great British Railways we do not adversely affect the current competitive market for online retail ticketing services. I will speak to a series of amendments in my name, Amendments 10, 52, 53, 136 and 139, and will also speak to amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young, to whose Amendments 48, 117, and 211 I have added my name. I will also support some other amendments that I was just not organised enough to put my name to: Amendments 11, 31, 49, 50, 180, 181, 182, 212, and 328.
If noble Lords will humour me, I will start by trying to set a bit of context for the whole group to try to explain why I think we should be worried about this and why noble Lords not as interested in digital as I am should care about the importance of this group. First, the Competition and Markets Authority has said it is worried. In April 2025, its response to the Government’s consultation on the future of the railways was very clear that this is a problem. It is concerned that the risks of actual and perceived self-preferencing are likely to be greater the more closely ticketing is integrated with GBR’s core activities. In the Bill, ticketing is very closely integrated into GBR’s activities. The CMA was very clear that it is important to send the right signals to independent retailers and investors that this would remain an open, competitive market. The CMA is worried.
Secondly, experience in other networked markets shows that we should all be worried. My experience is, as I said at Second Reading, from the telecoms market, where we know that BT’s ownership of Openreach led to very clear self-preferencing for BT retail and a long consumer campaign to separate out Openreach to force clarity and transparency. Actually, retail competition in telecoms has been hugely helpful, while at the same time acknowledging the need for that single Openreach infrastructure organisation. That happened only because of very clear competition regulation overseen by Ofcom. We know that if you do not have that, you get bad behaviour from the integrated virtual network monopoly.
Thirdly, the other reason why we should be worried is that this is already happening. Anyone who is used to having to use Delay Repay will notice that it has only very recently been integrated, and only partially, into the Trainline app. That is because the train operating companies refused to do it, because they wanted to keep control. Only in the last two months, GWR and Transport for Wales have both announced new ticket products that cannot be sold by third-party retailers. This is not in principle—they are much cleverer than that—but in practice. There are technical reasons why those products cannot be sold by other retailers; it is because the systems integration is not quite there or the data is not gathered. In one case, it is because the independent retailers do not capture date of birth. This is not by accident. This is what vertically integrated monopolies do: they design products that are very hard for their competitors to replicate. We should worry about this as we debate the Bill, even if we are not that interested in digital retailing.
I thank the Minister for his time on this. We had a very constructive meeting yesterday, and I know that he and his team have had constructive meetings with other noble Lords. I came away from my meeting with him, as I did from his speech at Second Reading, with the impression that he agrees that competition in retail ticketing is a good thing. I think we would all welcome him putting that firmly and clearly on the record today. The question is whether there are sufficient safeguards and signals in the Bill to make that the case. I do not think that there are. Just to try to decode this quite large and complex group, I think there are three areas that the amendments are seeking to get clarity on, without which there is a real risk that what is genuine consensus—that we do not want to nationalise ticketing but to have an open, competitive market—will not happen.
The first area is getting clarity in the Bill that GBR will be required to compete on the same economic terms as independent retailers. I do not think that that is currently clear, and there are a number of amendments attempting to make that clear in this group. The second area is getting clarity that the ORR will have a competition duty as it relates to enforcing the retail code of practice, so that there are real ex ante safeguards to prevent anti-competitive behaviour from GBR. The third area is that independent retailers will be able to appeal the decisions of the ORR as it relates to the retail code of conduct. If you think about it, those are the three layers of the onion. First, is GBR required to create a level playing field? Secondly, has the ORR got an obligation to oversee that level playing field? Thirdly, have independent retailers got a means of appealing if it goes wrong?
Let us take each of those in turn, starting with whether there is a level playing field. My experience from telecoms is that by far the best way to do this is functional separation of the network from the competitive retail market. Having spent a decade trying to make that happen in telecoms, I am pretty certain that it is better than trying to design the regulations. I have considerable sympathy with Amendment 182 by my noble friend Lord Holmes, who is beside me, and, if you read in detail the CMA’s response to the consultation last year, I think it does too. But I appreciate that the Government and the Minister have consistently rejected that organisational solution. If the Government are going to reject that solution, we really do need hard and fast guarantees that the obvious risk of abuse of that vertically integrated power can be mitigated. Their refusal of functional separation makes it all the more important that we get into the Bill the requirements on GBR to create economic parity. As the CMA said, the less functionally separate they are, the more important it is that these rules are clear.
A number of amendments in this group—Amendments 10, 11, 31, 48, 49, 50, 117 and 181—all separately try to achieve this. I accept that we do not need all those amendments; it is a function of the strength of feeling across the Committee that we have so many competing amendments attempting to do the same thing. If I had to choose, Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young is the most important and strongest, which would put it very clearly into GBR’s licence. However, I very much hope that we can have a constructive debate with the Minister on how we do this.
I would like to ask him a few questions about this. I fear he will say that we do not need to do this because it will all be set out in the retail code of conduct, but as that has not been published, even in draft form, it is impossible to be sure. Can he confirm when the draft code of conduct will be published? Can he confirm that it will state clearly that GBR’s retail ticketing operation will be subject to the Subsidy Control Act? Can he confirm that GBR will be required to publish separate accounts for its retail operations? I understand that he has indicated it will not, but I am flabbergasted by that because, just to manage the retail operations well, GBR will surely need to know whether it is making money. Those accounts should exist; it is just a question of whether it is willing to be transparent about it.
In confirming that the retail code of conduct will state clearly that GBR’s retail ticketing operation will be subject to the Subsidy Control Act, can he explain why it is better not to be clear that Parliament’s clear intention is that GBR should not adversely affect competition in retail ticketing? I cannot understand why the Government would not put one of these amendments into the Bill if—as I am sure the Minister would agree—we want to have a competitive market. In other digital areas, we have learned to our cost—we have learned it very recently in online safety—that, even when there is real cross-party support for a position, if we do not get it in the Bill, the regulator is capable of misinterpreting it. As the Minister has said himself, this is a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation. It is really important that we get the structure of this market right.
That is the first point; I promise I will be quicker on the second two. The second set of amendments within this group, Amendments 136 and 139 in my name, aims to make sure that we are clear about the role of the ORR. They would make it clear that the ORR’s competition duty should apply to the enforcement of GBR’s licence condition as it relates to the retail code of practice and when the ORR assesses GBR’s performance to the extent that it concerns retail ticketing. I know the Government will say that this is not necessary, it will all be set out in the code of conduct and it is already clear that this is the ORR’s job. In that case, let us make it clear in the Bill. There are a number of reasons why we really need to be clear about this. This not the ORR’s job at the moment. It does not have the skills and experience needed in retail ticketing, and it will need encouragement to build them, especially when there is so much for it to do in its core area of expertise of running the railways.
I am sure that it has the best possible intentions, but we know that running these regulators is really quite hard. We need to make sure that, as we create one of the country’s largest quangos in GBR, the ORR knows that one of its jobs is to keep GBR honest. If we do not have this in the Bill, I worry that, as the retail code of conduct is amended in five, 10 or 15 years, it will gently soften the amount of focus that the ORR needs to have on this. Before we know it, we will have another monopoly market where consumers are the ones who pay the price. It seems unnecessarily risky not to make these quite simple changes.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to five amendments in this group. I am the lead name on Amendment 31, which would require the Secretary of State to issue directions to promote fair competition, and on Amendment 48, to which my noble friend referred. It has the same objective as the other amendments, particularly those ably moved by my noble friend, but it does so by making it a condition of GBR’s licence that GBR does not distort the market in ticket sales. The advantage of that amendment is that it is upstream—it is proactive—in that GBR would not get its licence until it had satisfied not just Amendment 48 but, in conjunction with Amendment 47, the CMA had signed off the necessary precautions and provisions that my noble friend has just referred to to make sure that any competition is fair. The other amendments would place a duty on GBR to compete fairly, but they would bite only if it was alleged that it was not doing that. The advantage of Amendment 48, in conjunction with Amendments 47 and 49, is that it is upstream and hopes to avoid the problem.
I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting he held on 3 September when he confirmed that he wanted a fair and open market when it came to retailing. There was some good news at that meeting in that the Minister confirmed that GBR will not be selling tickets that only GBR can sell—a practice to which my noble friend referred. He confirmed that anything that GBR sells will be available to online retailers, and it would be helpful if we could have that on the record. The ORR has already done a review of the benefits of an active retail market, and this is what it said in 2015:
“Third party retailers play a key role in improving ticketing for passengers. They offer different ways to access information about rail fares and journeys and provide more choice in where and how to buy tickets. They also play a role in expanding the rail market (to the benefit of TOCs and taxpayers) and in putting competitive pressure on TOCs to improve their offering, including by innovating”.
A recent review by a firm called Teneo estimated that third-party retailers added an extra £450 million per year in additional revenue for the rail industry by attracting new customers, reducing friction in the rail journey and supporting revenue protection. The independent sector pioneered digital ticketing. It paid 70% of the £30 million upgrade to the new barcode infrastructure. Those benefits can carry through to GBR, but only if there is fair and open competition.
The independent retailers are used to competing with train operating companies. At the moment, they are prevented from unconstrained subsidy of their retailing by the public service obligations in transport. They are happy to continue to compete with GBR, but they are anxious that there should be a level playing field, as my noble friend has just explained. She quoted from the CMA; the following sentence adds force to her argument. About the risks, it said:
“In a more closely integrated model, additional safeguards are likely to be required in order to achieve the government’s aim to ensure the sector benefits from the effects of fair and open competition between GBR and TPRs”.
Those additional safeguards are the subject of all these amendments.
One possible solution would have been to adopt the model of SNCF, a publicly owned French railway company whose website is a separately owned company. However, the Minister has made it absolutely clear that he does not want that option; he wants an integrated GBR, so I will not pursue it in that particular form. But insisting on an integrated model does not mean that the cost of online retailing should not be identified—a point made by my noble friend. Separate and transparent financial accounting should be a cornerstone of the safeguards that the CMA and ORR want. My noble friend referred to British Telecom; there is a parallel here. Both GBR and British Telecom owned the network but sold services using that network in competition with others. As my noble friend said, the solution insisted on by the regulators was clear separation.
May I draw on my experience as a former Treasury Minister and Transport Secretary to outline the risks that I see ahead? In the next few years, there will be enormous pressure on the Department for Transport. It is an unprotected department, and the IFS has estimated that it will have to cut its budget by 3 percentage points between now and 2029. It will get a letter from the Treasury asking it to identify savings of between 5% and 10%, in cash terms, in order to keep the Government within their fiscal target. The Secretary of State will reply by thanking the Treasury in courteous terms and saying that it can meet that target only by either cutting investment, cutting the rolling stock programme, which impacts on growth, putting up ticket prices, which impacts on the CPI, or cutting branch lines that run through a whole lot of ministerial constituencies.
The Treasury will then go through the department’s budget line by line and suggest savings. It will ask why so much has been spent on first-class travel and why it has so many press officers. In relation to this debate, it will say to the GBR, “Why are you paying £200 million in commission to independent retailers when GBR has its own website?” It will suggest to the Department for Transport that it cuts the commission from 4.5% to 2%. It will say that, historically, it was 10%, but it was cut, and it was cut again by the RDG to 4.5% in 2021, I think. The Treasury will argue that the pain should be shared not just by the Department for Transport but by independent retailers, and that with AI and by seeking new markets and doing more advertising, it can reduce its costs. The online retailers will say, “This totally destroys our business model. There is no way we can survive on 2%. It will drive us out of business”. There will then be no pressure to innovate and no consumer choice, and we will be left with a GBR monopoly with no pressure to innovate or improve passenger standards.
They may actually go further and say that the website that should be taken down is actually GBR’s. They will say that there is no way that GBR could survive on 2% and may well allege that the website costs far too much to set up, that it is overstaffed and that the costs of the premises that the website occupies are not accurately reflected. I do not take sides in that great debate, but the only way that the ORR or CMA will resolve it is with some facts and figures that identify exactly what costs are involved in GBR’s exercise.
The Minister may argue that these amendments are not needed because GBR would already be bound by competition law—and it is—and there is already a statutory obligation to do what I have said, so what we are doing would simply duplicate that obligation. But how would that competition law be enforced if we do not have the data?
He may also argue that GBR is an integral entity quite different from an online retailer, that online retailing is lumped together with the ticket offices and call centres, that it is quite impractical for GBR to identify one means of selling its tickets from the others, and that it makes no sense to regulate online retailing separately from them. The Bill wants to lump it all together so that GBR’s online harm—online arm; I am sorry—can hide inside the wider retail function. That argument sits uneasily with a commitment to fair and open competition. The station ticket offices and call centres do not compete with the online market. The website does; online retailing does. Treating all retailing as one function allows GBR to claim that its online arm is merely part of a broader retail activity, enabling it to argue that competition duties do not apply to its online parts. Crucially, it allows the cross-subsidy from infrastructure budgets to be buried inside retailing and enables GBR to avoid the cost of sale parity by hiding online costs.
I noticed that these amendments are signed not just by Conservatives but by Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. So there is a real imperative on the Minister to indicate some flexibility on this matter, and some willingness to have further discussions and, crucially, to table some of the amendments or variations on them with the assurances that all those who have signed these amendments are after.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being here at the start of proceedings. Noble Lords put me on to the Economic Affairs Committee yesterday; it had its inaugural meeting this afternoon and it demanded my presence. I am so sorry to have missed the first two groupings, but I am here for this one.
I will speak to the two amendments to which I have added my name—Amendment 117, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, just referred, and Amendment 136, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. My reasons for supporting them closely parallel the arguments that we have heard. I do not have the distinguished history of having been a Rail Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, was—at least not in Westminster—but I had that role in the Scottish Parliament and I understand the risks of unprotected departments. Therefore, we have a duty in the Bill to consider how to protect the incredible digital innovation that we have seen in the provision of retailing services that have been widely welcomed by passengers across the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and I share a common interest in the whole area of digital regulation, as she said. The risk of leaving ambiguity surrounding the role of regulator and not putting obligations in the Bill may lead to unintended consequences down the line.
I thank the Minister and officials for the recent engagement they had with noble Lords around the intent in these areas of rail retailing. I appreciate that the retail code of practice will be published prior to Report; it will go some way to allow all parties to assess whether the code meets the Government’s stated objective of fair competition in retailing.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day one of Committee. I declare my technology interests, as set out in the register, as adviser to the Crown Estate and Simmons and Simmons LLP and as non-executive director of Avalanche Foundation and Avalanche BVI Inc.
What a group to be part of. For anybody who thought that competition is not a good idea, the arrival of a second ex-Secretary of State for Transport has demonstrated clearly that competition is the way forward, as I am sure we will see in a moment when I sit down. Fundamentally, what is there left for me to say after my noble friend Lady Harding’s forensic introduction, which took apart all of the reasons for the current construction of these sections in the Bill, followed by my noble friend Lord Young’s intervention?
In many ways, my noble friend Lord Young inadvertently, but highly accurately, summed this up when he said “harm” rather than “arm”, because that is where we are at. He looked forward into the future and into, as he said, how this may develop, but I would go further. There is no crystal ball gazing going on here. This is not a potential, as he set out. This is an inevitability; this will happen.
How can we know this will happen? Because it has already happened in other departments in very recent history. We do not need to go into the details but, last year, there was a case in point where, when the growth pressure came along, a particular government department saw a piece of work it was involved in where, for years, it had worked collaboratively with the private sector to build particular solutions, but then it saw that there was a potential wedge that it could throw into the pot to put into its departmental contribution. Suddenly, a screeching change of direction was taken and a monopoly play was deployed. This is inevitable if we progress with the Bill as currently constructed.
What is the Minister’s response? The CMA knows competition—it does it every day—and its submission was conclusive. Why would the Government want to construct something so clearly and monstrously problematic at this stage, which will only cause them pain within such a short space of time, when it is so avoidable, either through functional separation, as I suggested, or through the eminently sensible alternatives offered by my noble friends? Why would the Government choose such a problematic path forward at this stage, when it is more than reasonably foreseeable that the problems will come? In fact, as I said, it is inevitable.
Competition is absolutely critical, and the other element within competition is innovation. This will not lead to optimal innovation. Let us imagine not just the potential plurality of ticket retail sellers but the kind of products that they could bring on stream. We could see tokenised tickets that could transform the passenger experience; they could contain so many details that there would not be a need for passengers to explain, for example, their needs, whatever they may be. They would all be contained in a tokenised ticket. That would be truly transformational, but it would require a level playing field, a crowding in of competition and, through that, a crowding in of innovation.
I move on to my second amendment, going broader and looking at the huge array of data already available to GBR. We have always had a huge volume of data across transport, not least in the railways, and it has never had the opportunity to truly drive the transformation that it could. We have talked tickets, but take the example of the rolling stock itself: imagine what innovation third-party, crowded-in businesses could bring if they had those data at their fingertips. The great news is that neither GBR nor this Committee has to imagine what that innovation could be; all that has to be done is to put those data out there on a level playing field, equally available through the technologies that exist. The innovation, transformation and improvement would simply flow.
For reasons of competition, innovation and taking all the advantage of these new technologies, I constantly mention the problematic nature of the Government flatly refusing to pass a cross-sector and cross-economy AI regulation Bill. We see it here and in the cyber Bill, for those who have been in Committee on that Bill. That could lay out a framework that could work in this rail context as it would in all other sections of our economy and society. If that will not be in place, how will the advantages of these technologies be felt by passengers, rail workers and everybody involved in the GBR entity coming into being? We need to see these changes if we are to feel, and be availed of, that transformational potential and the economic benefits that will flow. The Government would benefit from adopting changes set out in this suite of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and I fully support comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, from her experience in telecom. I have suffered a bit myself from them, and what she told the Committee is no surprise.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is also absolutely right that we need a level playing field. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, probably hit the nail on the head when he said that the sooner we do this, the better, so I definitely support his Amendment 48.
It is worth reminding ourselves that there is not just one big private sector retailer and all the ones that retail for the TOCs at the moment, but there are lots of smaller ones as well. The ORR will have to look at making sure that the fair competition between the big ones and the little ones is kept in line with competition policy and that we do not have one of them running away with everything else. It would be no good having one private sector company becoming a private sector monopoly—you might as well have a GBR monopoly—but we do not want monopolies. That is my message.
One noble Lord who spoke was concerned about the workload that may be coming to the ORR. I have had many experiences with the ORR over the years and it tries very hard, but it needs to be prepared for an extension to its scope. However, one thing I know is that it is capable of doing it and will be interested in doing it. I am sure many noble Lords have talked to it in the last few months. I think the ORR is also quite relaxed about the involvement of the CMA, because the CMA needs to be there as well, possibly as a second line of defence. It will just not work unless the level playing fields are separated from the great work that GBR will do in running trains and making sure the infrastructure works and things like that. Having a separation, including the accounts, as some noble Lords have said, is really important. I hope my noble friend will come back with some positive views on competition, and we maybe will even have to have a meeting or two before Report.
Baroness Leaman (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 208 and 339 in my name in this group. I set out the case for automatic Delay Repay at Second Reading, so I will not repeat that ground today save to say that I doubt I am alone in having abandoned a claim because the process took longer than the journey was delayed. Instead, I will use this stage to explain what these two amendments would do.
Amendment 208 would place a duty on GBR and open access operators to pay Delay Repay compensation automatically, wherever they hold enough information to identify that a passenger’s journey was delayed by 15 minutes or more and have the means to pay them. Where an operator does not hold that information, it would still have to take reasonable steps to let the passenger know they are entitled to claim, so the burden of finding out does not fall on the passenger alone. No one would receive less under the automatic route than under operators’ existing schemes, and payment would default to digital means to reflect the way that most fares are already bought and refunded today. None of this asks GBR to invent a new right. It asks operators to use data that they already have to give effect to a right that passengers already have. I am open to a different mechanism if the Minister has one in mind but the underlying case is straightforward. Whether a passenger gets money back that they are owed should not depend on which operator runs their line or on their persistence with a claim form. A right that exists on paper but which is rarely exercised in practice is not really much of a right at all.
My proposed new clause would also leave the Secretary of State flexibility to set timescales, notification methods and exceptions by regulation. Amendment 339 follows from that. As drafted, those regulations would be subject only to the negative procedure, taking effect unless the House objected. Amendment 339 would instead require debate and approval by both Houses under the affirmative procedure. Given how much of this scheme’s substance would sit in regulations rather than in the Bill, Parliament should scrutinise and approve them properly, not simply have the chance to object afterwards.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I added my name rather belatedly to Amendment 208 from the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. She has put it so well that I will not detain your Lordships at all, except to say that I added my name. I am astonished that nobody else did, because it seems like such an extraordinarily good idea that I do not know why it has not been done before.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I did not add my name, but there is a limit to the number of names you can add. Many of us feel very supportive of the recommendations from my noble friend Lady Leaman in those two amendments.
I simply want to give some context to the reasons for the amendments such as those from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to be considered for the Bill, or something based on them being considered, to secure a genuinely fair and free market in the retail sales of train tickets. It is worth remembering how much difference the private operators made to the price you had to pay for many kinds of journey. We have been discussing it in theoretical terms, but there was a time when, if you wanted to travel from Edinburgh to Penzance on the cross-country train which made that journey, the cost was enormous. What changed it? It was split ticket operators demonstrating that they could get four or five different tickets—including, when I did it on one occasion, a West Yorkshire rover ticket that carried me one small piece of the journey—and that this accumulation of a handful of tickets would give you a price less than half the cost that you would have been quoted originally for that journey.
Not only did that cheapen tickets for a lot of people making difficult journeys, but it also changed the attitude of many of the operating companies. Certainly when I go to the station to buy a ticket, I am now always asked whether I want a cheaper ticket by getting the next train or the one before it. There is an alertness to the customer’s need to know what the options are for a reasonably priced ticket, which has been brought into the system by the private operators. I do not advocate these amendments because competition is a good Liberal value, but because experience has proved that to be the case.
All this has to exist in a world in which very rapid change will take place. At the moment, operators issue their own tickets. The result is that there is an invisible interaction between the person selling the ticket, the retailer, and the revenue protection officer on the train whose decision it is whether that ticket will be valid on that train. If you have missed one and are getting the next one, it may well not be; if you have chosen to change your journey pattern, it may well not be. The Minister may fondly believe—we have talked about this in a very helpful discussion—that all this will fall away, because when GBR is the only one providing the trains, there will not be these difficulties. I am not convinced of that; I think that old habits will die hard. If we are not very careful, we will still have a situation where the retailer gives you the impression that he is retailing a piece of paper or an email that will enable you to travel on one of several trains, when you are actually buying something limited by the policies and practice of the operator. It may be one operator in principle, but there will still be different regions under different regional management, so we need to have methods of ensuring that. I hope to return to that second point later in Committee, but we should understand the context and value of what we are discussing.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I do not have my name on these amendments, but I thoroughly agree with pretty much everything that has been said. I especially support what my noble friend Lady Harding said in introducing this group and am entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I do not want to get into the question of appeals, because we will come on to how the appeal process should be structured later.
Amendment 47 in the name of my noble friend about the approved document is particularly important. I assume that the code of practice that we are promised, which the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, was talking about, is the equivalent of the approved document or some part of it. At the moment, we have this ticketing and settlement agreement. We have to know how this is going to work in future. If we do not, we should expect—indeed, we should call for—the Competition and Markets Authority to step in. As things stand, the relevant aspects of the ticketing and settlement agreement constitute part of a block exemption against a Chapter 1 prohibition under the Competition Act. It is, on the face of it, potentially an anti-competitive agreement, but the block exemption exists. The question is whether the agreement satisfies the requirements of the block exemption. We have to look at the agreement to know whether that is the case, which is why Amendment 47 is right. We have to ask the Competition and Markets Authority whether the code of practice or the approved document under the Bill satisfies the requirements of the block exemption.
The fact is that GBR will be in a dominant position. Under the Competition Act, in addition to the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements there is a prohibition on abuse of a dominant position. Much of this debate is saying that, given that we know that GBR will be in a dominant position, we should be actively looking for the Office of Rail and Road, by way of market investigations in this area if necessary, or the Competition and Markets Authority to step in, as the current jurisdiction enables it to do, to counter any abuse. We know from Clause 2(1) that Great British Railways has no Crown immunity. Under Section 73 of the Competition Act, there is a Crown immunity from the constraints, remedies and directions of the Competition and Markets Authority, so GBR does not want to be in a position where the Competition and Markets Authority comes after it to prevent its abuse of a dominant position. For all those reasons, the Government would be well advised to put into the legislation measures that will prevent GBR being tempted to abuse its dominant position and to ensure that the approved document will satisfy the CMA’s requirements for a block exemption.
Lord Harper (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe for her excellent opening of this group, the comprehensive way in which she did it and—I think this is a powerful point—her real experience of a similar process and what actually happens in practice. One of the values of this House is having not just theoretical debates but Members who have experience of how these things work in practice. It is no good just legislating for what we think might happen; it is about what will happen. That was particularly valuable.
In this area, unlike some of the areas in the Bill, there is broad consistency among everybody who has spoken so far. At Second Reading, in other fora and in writing, the Minister set out that the Government want a competitive retail landscape and recognise the benefits of that. So what we are debating here is not the principle but how best to achieve that shared goal in practice. I will try to add to this debate.
Practically, the suggestion in my noble friend Lord Holmes’s Amendment 182 of a functional separation —which the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, also raised—is the cleanest and most sensible solution. That means that GBR is not in a position where it is tempted to abuse a dominant market position. It has a separate retailing arm, the rules can operate in a transparent way, you avoid a lot of trouble and you do not have to set up a complicated mechanism to deal with that abuse. I understand that the Government have set their face against that, but I reinforce that that would be the best solution and would solve a lot of these problems.
If the Government do not want to do that, for whatever reason, we absolutely need to make sure, first, that there is transparency. If all this is hidden away, it is very difficult for whatever mechanisms are put in place, whether it is the CMA, the ORR or whatever legal processes the independent retailers have to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, they are not huge companies with bottomless pits of money to be able to do this. If you do not have transparency, people do not know what is going on.
I will make a slightly different argument, bringing in our friends from the Treasury, than the one my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made. This is one where the Treasury should be on our side. One of the important things that the Treasury wants to achieve is to reduce the subsidy paid to the rail network because, post Covid, the rail network does not send money to the Treasury; it sucks money away from the Treasury. The only way that will change on the operating side is if there is innovation and more passengers use the rail network. The ticketing retailers are one of the ways, in the innovative way they retail tickets. Importantly, if leisure travel is to be a growth area, the partnerships that they strike with providers of leisure opportunities can then be combined with travel to produce innovative packages. If you are going to do all that, you need that thriving, competitive retailing operation, so the Treasury should want that to be successful.
The other thing the Treasury should want is that the operating cost of GBR’s own ticketing operation should be as low as possible. On the cost of running that operation, I challenge what my noble friend Lord Young said. We know what the third-party retailers get because we know what the percentage commission is. If GBR’s retailing operation is not able to run its services for less money than that, it should not be in business, frankly, because it is adding no value at all and should not be running it. My hunch is it that it will not be able to, which is why, when I was Secretary of State, I said it should not really get involved in this business at all because there were lots of competing providers that were much better at it and, frankly, it should just get those to do it.
However, for reasons I do not quite understand, Ministers want GBR to be involved in this process. So, it is critical that the accounting—I declare my interest here as a chartered accountant—should be absolutely transparent so that we can see what it costs. From the Treasury’s point of view, as I said, it wants to be sure that no subsidy is going into the ticketing operation from the rest of the thing, given that there are competitive operators that can deliver this, I suspect, more cost effectively. That is an argument for the Treasury supporting some of these amendments.
On the subsidy point, I believe there is a question that is not resolved, which the independent retailers are concerned about. I understand that, in written correspondence with the Independent Rail Retailers, the department has asserted that GBR’s online retailer will not be subject to the Subsidy Control Act 2022, arguing instead that it will be governed solely by the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. That approach is inconsistent with the legal framework and assurances given by Ministers during the passage of the Bill so far that GBR will remain subject to public law, competition and subsidy control requirements.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a strong debate on an important issue. It is about ensuring that passengers have a wide range of retailers from which to buy their tickets and other associated services, whether for leisure or onward travel and so on, and that there is a level playing field between Great British Railways’ retail arm and the third sector providers. At the start of the discussion on this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, made a clear case about the issues, which are uniting members from across the Committee.
Throughout the discussions on all the amendments in these groups there has been a desire for genuine and fair choice for passengers. We want to promote a competitive retail market and equal access to systems, data and products so that they can be used by start-ups and others as well as established practitioners in this area. The latter point is important. It is part of Amendment 211 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and is supported by a number of other Members, including my noble friend Lord Dixon of Jericho. I want to spell out why these issues are so important.
I was really interested to hear about the recent product launched in Wales earlier, which not all third-party retailers were able to promote. In the last week, South Western Railway has had a special discount, some kind of flash sale, on rail tickets on its services. I was not able to find these on my usual app—Trainline, though others are available—but only on the South Western Railway website, which is what I had to use to purchase these super-discounted tickets. It may well be my technological limitations failing me, but, if I had not seen an email from South Western Railway, I would not have known about these special tickets and would have ended up paying three to four times the amount for my travel.
There has to be a genuine level playing field where all retailers can sell the same tickets and discounted tickets and use their skills and innovations to drive more traffic through their sites and apps. Different people read data and information in different ways, and that is why we have such a range of apps; we all look at things differently and have different ways we want to purchase tickets. It is important that this can thrive, with the jobs and innovation that this creates.
Members from different parties are in the same area on this issue, but some go further. Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, wishes to prevent Great British Railways having any retail website or application until Parliament has had a say over its full-life cost. This sounds a little bit like what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was talking about—when he was in the department saying, “Why is Great British Railways getting into this space at all?”
As we have already heard, if you look internationally, SNCF has a retail arm in France, but it is kept separate from the main SNCF network, so there is no conflict. In some ways, that is a bit like the regeneration and planning functions of a local authority. They are a part of the same body, but they have to be kept separate because of their distinct functions. Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, suggests a way to do this, which may help with this concern.
My noble friend Lord Dixon of Jericho spoke eloquently at Second Reading about this area. I know he has held several meetings with officials to discuss his concerns not just about the existing third-party retailers but the ease for new entrants—start-ups—to come into this marketplace and offer the quality services that passengers desire.
Finally, I want to pick up on Amendments 208 and 339, tabled by my noble friend Lady Leaman. This is so important for passengers. It would ensure automatic Delay Repay compensation, whichever retailer you have bought your tickets with. It is about putting the passenger front and centre so that, if something does go wrong, they are compensated without having to jump through hoop after hoop. It is a basic right if we are to transform our railways into the modern, passenger-focused service that we all desire.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on this really strong debate; I hope that it is far more than simply saying that the retail code of practice, as an approved document, will deal with all these issues. I think the Minister will have heard loudly and clearly—and not just from the transport enthusiasts, though many of us are here in this Room—that noble Lords are rightly concerned about this area, and we must get this right.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but I will not speak to them because right at the outset my noble friend Lady Harding said that there were quite a lot of amendments in this group which offered different means of achieving the same thing, and it was hard to say which were the better ones. I am not claiming that mine are better than others, and I think my noble friend Lord Harper said something along the same lines. We have put them down because we feel strongly about a very important issue, we want it debated, we want the Government to take note and to do something about it before we get to Report. Whether they do what my amendment or somebody else’s amendment says is something we might have a chance to debate and discuss privately before we get to that point—I do not know—but I am not wedded to my particular solutions and therefore will not speak directly to them.
I will say that we on our side support everything that has been said, in that we are curious about why GBR is doing this. I will come back to this point; I will make the Minister’s case for him in a moment, rather against my own interests. We are curious as to why the Minister wants to do this in the first place but, if he is going to do it, there has to be a level playing field for those who are already in the field and other new entrants, because they have demonstrated the advantages they can bring to passengers. The difficulty here—it will arise in the next group—is that GBR is effectively a huge bear sitting in your front room. That bear is both a competitor and a regulator, and its slightest twitch, even unintentionally, could do serious damage to your business. There are a lot of private sector businesses, not just in ticket retailing but those who want to have access to freight and for other purposes, which we will come to later—open access and so forth —which are very worried about what is being created.
The only assurance we are getting from the Minister is essentially, “We are decent professional people; we will do this well”. That is fine. The noble Lord is a decent and professional person. Having worked with him for many years, I am happy if it is of any value to him to give him that endorsement. However, he lacks the quality of immortality. It is necessary to give at least 30 years’ guarantee, if this is going to be the legislative background for 30 years.
Lord Moylan (Con)
He may do that. He lacks the ability in himself to give us the level of assurance that we and various aspects of the industry—not just retail—want.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for having held a meeting, which was open to all interested Peers, last week. I will say something that I raised then. I have to say that I had to slip out briefly during my noble friend Lord Holmes’s speech. He may have said something along these lines. I know he spoke about data.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It was a very good speech that I will read several times in Hansard before tomorrow is out. I just wanted to address what I would do if I were in the Minister’s position—and he and I have been in a similar position together when we were responsible for Transport for London. One of the interests you have as a business in operation is that you want the direct contact with your customers. You want direct customer contact, partly because you want the data. The noble Lord has said this—we have had some conversations, both privately and in that meeting. You want their data. This is perfectly obvious.
In my pocket now, I have a Nectar card and a BP card. I am carrying these things around, not really for my benefit but for the benefit of the companies, which want lots of data and information about me. GBR will be in no different position. Therefore, in one sense, it wants to be, like TfL, a monopoly supplier of its own tickets. The temptation to be a monopoly supplier of its own tickets will be huge, quite apart from any pressure that might come from the Treasury or anywhere else, because it wants that data.
Yet the position of the noble Lord seems to me slightly incoherent. He could step forth boldly and say, “We want that data. We need to be a monopoly supplier, and all these private companies, whatever they do, have to go, because they are getting in the way of what we want. You cannot buy your groceries from Sainsbury’s through a third-party retailer—you can only buy them from Sainsbury’s”. He could say that. That would be a coherent position, although not a politically very easy one in current circumstances, I have to say. Or he could say that he is happy to have a large amount of competition, which is what he seems to be saying.
I can be corrected if I am wrong—I have heard this figure without absolute certainty in it—but I understand that close to 90% of tickets are currently sold by third-party retailers on the railways, so when the noble Lord starts, he will be starting from a very low base. To get any useful data at all on his customers, he will have to build up a huge customer base from a very low start. Is that his intention? Does he regard that as a business goal, and if so, what does it say about his strategy for dealing with the private sector?
I do not know what the answers to these questions are. It is difficult. It is right to look at this, as noble Lords have, from the point of view of the benefits of the customer. However, it is also worth thinking about the commercial imperatives that GBR will have and whether it should be allowed to pursue those commercial imperatives, or whether it should be constrained in order to benefit a competitive field.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very powerful debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who tabled amendments and for the contributions of noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith. About the only thing that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, on is that this is not railway related. I think it is, it is about selling railway travel, but I have huge respect for her experience of other markets, as I have for the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
I reassure noble Lords that we are absolutely aligned with the intentions of these amendments. We want an open and competitive retail market, and we completely support the benefits that independent retailers can bring. I may not have time to answer the points that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just made, but if I do not do so now, I will later because there are other ways in which the railway can derive data about its customers. I do not think the acquisition of data is sufficient justification for only the railway to sell its product, but I must have a railway that is able to sell its own product because I want its staff, managers and directors to care about its income and its passengers.
Once GBR is established, it will have a retail function, as provided for by Clause 3. Crucially, this will be accessible via all channels—through station ticket offices, ticket vending machines, onboard trains, access through gates, ticket inspectors and online—ensuring that it serves passengers however they buy their tickets. GBR’s future online retailer, its website and app will operate in a fair, open and competitive market. To be clear, independent retailers help drive innovation, improve passenger experience and increase choice for customers purchasing rail tickets.
We realise that the dual role as a retailer and the provider of certain cross-industry systems and services could create potential conflict of interest risks. That is why we have announced a robust package of safeguards specifically designed to address these concerns. In response to the CMA report in 2025, mentioned by noble Lords in the debate, we are proposing an industry retail code of practice owned by the Office of Rail and Road and backed with the force of a GBR licence condition ensuring that the ORR will enforce GBR’s compliance with it. For the record, paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 is the place where the ORR is required to create the code and enforce it.
I can confirm today that the draft code will require GBR to adhere to a range of principles. These include ensuring access to products, providing services and data on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory terms and supporting new market entrants. We are determined that all retailers can sell all tickets. The draft code will also require safeguards around our decision to separate decision-making between GBR’s retail activity and its cross-industry systems and services, supported by appropriate information protections. This provides more protection for third-party retailers than exist today when competing with myriad train operators.
If GBR does not comply with the code, the ORR can employ enforcement measures up to and including a legally binding mandatory order for GBR to change its actions. These enforcement measures can be employed in response to a third party raising an issue with the regulator or where ORR identifies an issue through its routine monitoring. The full draft code will be published when the ORR launches its consultation before the end the next recess. This follows extensive engagement it has already undertaken with industry. It will consider feedback from the consultation informing the final draft of the code of practice in 2027. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we are expecting the CMA to respond to the consultation that the ORR will launch.
As noble Lords have suggested, we want the ORR to be adequately resourced to carry out these functions. Noble Lords who came to the session we had last week, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will have heard reassurance from the senior leadership of the ORR that they intend to do this and are prepared to do so.
I should also be clear that GBR will be required to comply with competition law. The ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority will continue to oversee the market, and both already have powers to act where anti-competitive behaviour is identified. Alongside that existing framework, the code will create a framework that represents a more extensive form of regulatory assurance than is currently found in most comparable European rail markets. The Government therefore believe that the objectives of these amendments are already being delivered. The code will provide meaningful protection for independent retailers and can adapt as the market develops.
Amendments 49 and 181 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and concern cross-subsidisation—
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Before he moves on, I may have misunderstood, but I do not think he addressed whether GBR would be subject to the Subsidy Control Act.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am about to get there. In turning to Amendments 49 and 181 concerning cross-subsidisation and subsidy control, I can offer further reassurance. The advantage of interventions is that you make your point; the disadvantage is that you stop hearing. As a public body, GBR is required to comply with Managing Public Money principles and relevant subsidy control legislation. The Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations is the relevant subsidy control legislation that applies to retail specifically.
GBR’s passenger services business will therefore operate within a clear financial framework, ensuring that public funding is used appropriately and fairly. GBR will be required through its business plan to set out its activities, such as its broad retailing function, the costs of these activities and how it proposes that these costs are met. The business plan must cover everything that GBR does, so there should be no concern about transparency.
It is important to note that GBR will be operating a transport service of which retailing is a part. It will have to use all available channels to serve passengers, however they buy their tickets. If it is allocated more funding for retail than would be needed for a simple online retail platform, it is simply because it also has an obligation to provide physical ticket sales—I listed those activities before—including for people who pay cash. They are far more costly to provide, and other retailers are most unlikely to provide them.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young, it will not be possible for GBR to subsidise retail from infrastructure budgets, for example, as ticket offices are not classed as infrastructure. GBR will not be overcompensated to deliver retail functions in a way that distorts the market. Funding will be allocated based on the costs of delivering those services to passengers.
It will also be subject to the oversight of the ORR as the sector specialist competition regulator, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority. In that role, the ORR will be able to take enforcement steps against GBR, should it suspect that GBR is using public funds to act in an anti-competitive way.
Lord Harper (Con)
Before the Minister moves on, can I press him on two of the things that he has said? In his opening summary, he set out the Government’s view. The problem is that if the retailers do not buy it—they do not, at the moment—whatever he thinks, they are not going to be investing, innovating and developing because they will not be able to justify that to their shareholders. Part of the problem is the need to take some steps to persuade retailers that they will be treated fairly.
Secondly, I think the Minister inadvertently made this point about accounting. I know about the ticketing and settlement agreement to my cost and about some of the ways that retailing has to be done. If GBR is, in effect, doing different things—if it has an online operation but has to do all this other stuff—it will be even more important that there is clear accounting and transparency about where the money is going. Otherwise, it will be impossible to work out whether it is subsidising its online operations, which are competing with third party retailers, by bringing in more money for its other services.
Frankly, it is really important for the taxpayer that we know how much it costs to retail through ticket offices and how cost effective that is because, at some point, Ministers will have to grasp the issue—I started to grasp it but had to ungrasp in the end—that providing things through ticket offices when hardly anyone buys tickets that way will have to change at some point in the future. There has to be some clear and transparent cost information to enable the right decisions to be taken.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I simply say to the noble Lord, first, that there will have to be 100% transparency because, apart from anything else, GBR will have to put all the costs into its business plan. My other point about his first point is that there has been a lot of investment already, with very little protection. Part of what we are doing is to give greater protection for retailers in the future, which they need because they have invested. That is a valid point.
Amendments 47, 51, 52, 53, 136 and 139 concern oversight. The retail code of practice will, as I said, be administered and enforced by the ORR. It is the appropriate body to assess complaints and determine whether GBR has complied with its obligations, but GBR will also be fully subject to competition law, alongside the existing oversight of the Competition and Markets Authority. Nothing in the Bill prevents the CMA from acting on competition challenges in rail, and nothing prevents retailers from referring issues to the CMA—either competition issues relating to the code of practice or wider competition issues. So a second opinion is always available and, of course, if they wanted to appeal to the courts, they could judicially review those decisions further.
Currently, at least, additional approval requirements and further statutory appeal routes simply duplicate the existing regulatory arrangements without providing meaningful additional protections, and transparency, as I have referred to, is already baked into this framework. It is a core regulatory principle for the ORR, which has historically publicised the launching, and formal outcome, of railway licence investigations, and I would expect it to continue to do so. The Bill retains the requirement for the ORR to give notice for any decision not to issue an enforcement order following a licence breach, providing a legislative backstop for this transparency.
I move to Amendments 136 and 139. It would not be appropriate for the ORR’s general duty to promote competition to apply to rail retailing wholesale. If it did, the competition duty would conflict with the ORR’s role in fairly and objectively enforcing the safeguards that the Government have charged it to deliver via the code. Enforcement of the code should be fair and evidence-based, determined simply by whether GBR has complied with the code of practice or not. It should not be subject to other goals, which might cause the ORR to judge operators’ compliance unfairly. This is usual practice for enforcement provisions.
However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that the competition duty will absolutely apply to the ORR when it is writing the code of practice, so the code itself will have competition principles embedded within it. My officials wrote to her on that subject. The noble Baroness put to the Committee a number of clear propositions that I will consider carefully as a consequence of what she said. I believe I have answered many of them, but I will look at what she said further, and of course the publication of the draft code of practice will help considerably. I will also consider what the noble Lord, Lord Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and other noble Lords said. As I said, we expect the CMA to respond to the consultation, so we will see what it says.
On Amendment 17, the Government fully agree that appropriate oversight and scrutiny of public spending is important. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The government policy has long been that GBR will retail tickets online through a high-quality website and app, as the train operating companies do now and have done for many years, without fees to passengers.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this meaty debate. They included multiple ex-Secretaries of State and Members with private sector, regional and devolved experience. I think there was real unanimity of intent. I also thank the Minister. There was an awful lot in his response, which I suspect we will all need to read carefully to understand properly. I take at face value his opening statement of being in line with the intentions of all these amendments. However, there is a lot of work to do between now and Report. It is encouraging to know that we will see the draft code before the end of Recess. I think it will require a lot of detailed thought and discussion.
I shall close by highlighting what my noble friends on the left and right of me have just said. My noble friend Lord Moylan set out exactly why I still think we are going to need to put more in the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said the same thing: Governments in the future will want to protect the monopoly of the vertically integrated GBR. A good friend of mine in the tech world once told me that monopolies are like children: until you have one of your own, you do not realise how valuable they are, but once you have one, you will protect it with your life. I therefore think we need to hear the wisdom of everyone in this debate today. Without clear guardrails in the Bill and signals to investors and independent retailers that we really mean it, and that this will live beyond the current Government, I fear that the Minister’s great intent will not turn into reality. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I expect that there will be much debate and discussion between now and Report.
Lord Moylan
“(2A) Decisions about access to, and use of, railway infrastructure for the operation of trains will be made by the Office of Rail and Road.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continue to make decisions about access.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group. I have extracted them because, if we thought that the last group dealt with private sector concerns of some significance, this group deals with much larger private sector concerns. One of the biggest fears of the private sector, particularly those who operate trains, is the question of access to the rails—access to the track. The current system is that an independent body, the Office of Rail and Road, decides on applications for access to the track. Network Rail decides what should be paid for that, but that is also supervised and approved by the Office of Rail and Road. So there is an independent balancing authority in place that makes these crucial decisions.
Who are we talking about? About 75% of the train movements on Network Rail’s track will be GBR movements. The other 25% are people who need access to that track. They need an independent body; they value an independent body deciding whether they can have that access. They are freight operators; they are what I will call regional operators, such as Transport for London with the London Overground network and Merseyrail; and they are the open access operators. Here, I also have to mention, although it will be debated separately, the heritage railway sector, which has made representations to us and no doubt to other noble Lords about its need for access to the track.
I said on the last group that Great British Railways was like a huge bear—though a friendly bear, in the shape of the noble Lord—sitting in your front room, and the slightest twitch could wipe out your business, even inadvertently. The fact is that this bear will be a regulator making regulatory decisions about access and will be a direct competitor for use of some of those tracks. I say “some” because there will be some tracks where there is sufficient capacity and everyone can have a go so there will be no problem, but a lot of the network is congested. GBR will have a powerful incentive to allocate to itself tracks that it needs for its growing passenger service. When it is not doing that, however, it will be held up by the fact that it also has an objective to increase freight. There is a number attached to that; I cannot remember the number just now, but it requires freight to be increased fairly consistently over a period in order to hit that target. Its second thought, if it is considering who is to have access to congested track, will be, “If it’s not us at GBR, perhaps we’re going to give it to freight”. But that will not be always; not all the freight people will get what they want. Then it will only be further down the line that it will be thinking about the other players that I mentioned.
Amendment 16 is straightforward. It would leave the current situation as it is and those decisions would be made by the Office of Rail and Road. Everybody would understand what was happening. Amendment 221 offers a fallback position. It says that, if the Government are going ahead with this, there must be a right of appeal to the ORR. At the moment, amazingly, having created this huge insensitivity, the Bill says that you can appeal to the ORR but its decisions will not be binding. They will, in effect, be advisory to Great British Railways. This amendment states that the process would be binding and that it would be done not simply on judicial review grounds—that is, whether GBR followed the right process—but on the merits of the case. That, I think, would be a good fallback. The Minister, in writing a very lengthy and helpful letter to noble Lords after Second Reading, said that, if we were to have an independent appeal body, it would create what he called a second directing mind, and he is not willing to have a second directing mind.
I just want to dwell on that for a second because I think it shows the difficulties that we are all going to have with this problem. It is true that you could say that the ORR in that capacity would be a second directing mind, but there are many other second directing minds. The structure being created by the Minister will not have a single directing mind; after all, the courts could make decisions about matters subject to judicial review that will be binding on the Minister. But the Minister does not say, “I wish to be excused supervision by the courts because that would be a second directing mind”. Again, of course, the Secretary of State has huge powers of direction over GBR built into the Bill, but the Minister does not say that that is impermissible because the Secretary of State would be a second directing mind. So to say that a regulator is a second directing mind—and to some extent all regulators are, where they exist—is not a defence to the claim that there must be somebody capable of giving the assurances to the open-access operators, regional government operators and freight operators that their case will be considered fairly and that the charges when set will be fair.
Then we come to another point. The Bill requires GBR to set a scale of charges for access to the track but then gives GBR the power to decide to set a higher charge for access to the tracks if it believes that an economically efficient operator can bear it. Of course, deciding what is an economically efficient operator requires a whole set of experts doing nothing but that. If you go to somewhere such as the Civil Aviation Authority, which has to make decisions about whether something is economically efficient, there is a whole suite of people working there who make these decisions. It is their expertise; they are economic utility regulators. The same thing happens with other utilities. There is no mention in the Bill, however, or anywhere else, that GBR is going to recruit that capacity, but none the less it is going to set itself up to make the decision about whether somebody is or is not an economically efficient operator and what they can bear. It will be able to set higher charges limited only by that consideration. None of this washes with the private, municipal or freight sectors. They simply do not accept this any more than the retail sector accepts what the Government are offering to it.
As with the retail sector, the private sector operating on the railway—it is very sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is not here to disagree with me about this—has added huge amounts. The whole of the freight sector is privately owned, and nobody is suggesting that there is going to be any change to that. Open-access operators using white track spaces offer benefits. The heritage sector brings in a modest, but none the less very useful, income to this country. It is part of our tourism industry and very useful in that regard. It gives jobs, entertainment and value to people who live in the communities served by the heritage railways.
The purpose of these two amendments is to open up a debate on this very important issue, where the Government have been obdurate, despite all the representations made to them, but which I think will have to be addressed by this House. I do not think this Bill can leave this House with this structure in place. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for putting down these two amendments. I too have had many representations from all kinds of people and companies who already operate trains or would like to. We are not talking about the branch lines, which are on the whole private and are not covered here anyway; there are an awful lot of what some people might call excursion trains, dining trains or whatever—there is the Jacobite train going to Mallaig which, I am told, is highly successful—as well as freight, which all need access to the network. Even at the moment, there are stories of people applying to get on the network, for a pass somewhere, to be told that it is already full; then they go back to what is Network Rail at the moment and say, “Well, if you did this and that, you could get an extra train or two on”. It also covers the issue of the risks and the penalties if something goes wrong, because Network Rail at the moment will think, “We do not want this because it could muck up the service and cause delays elsewhere”.
On having the independent ORR being what you might call an appeal body, I do not look upon it as a secondary directing mind, because the first directing mind is quite often a monopoly. We spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about monopolies and how we do not want them, and the Minister said he does not like monopolies either. This kind of catch-all amendment covering all the different types of train that might want to use the network, and with an appeal body in the ORR, would be a very sensible solution. I fully support it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments on this. In many ways, this debate is similar in its nature to the one we have just had, in that it relates to how the GBR relates to an independent sector. In the previous debate, it was independent retailers; in this case, it is the independent operators using open access. Again, the terms of trade are being changed. If one looks at the consultation document on this, it says that:
“GBR will become the decision maker for key decisions on access terms that are currently led by the ORR: the duration and form of access rights, developing and setting the access charges framework and the design of performance incentive regimes contained in track access regimes”.
It goes on to say that:
“For GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions on the best use of its network, the ORR’s current role must change”.
At the moment, the ORR has the last word on an open access application, and the department cannot overrule it; that is going to change. We have had representations from the open access operators. I have had also representations about the Elizabeth line and Heathrow Express, which are both anxious that they could be adversely affected by this change in responsibility.
The noble Lord may remember a debate we had in the Moses Room about 18 months ago on this particular subject, which I introduced. At that point, I referred to another debate in the other place, where there was a lot of support from Labour MPs for the principle of open access: their constituents had benefited from it, and they were concerned that it might be curtailed. My noble friend Lord Moylan referred to access charges and how changing the access charge could make it uneconomic.
I want to approach this from a slightly different point of view, which concerns the criteria that the ORR uses to decide whether to grant open access. If there is no capacity on the rail network, it is clear that the application should be refused. If there is capacity, the ORR refers to the NPA—not primarily abstractive—rate. That means that if you want to open a new service, you must add at least 30p of new revenue for every £1 you abstract from the existing ones. In other words, any new service must not rely on more than 70% of its revenue to justify its application. There is concern that that abstraction rate might be changed. One assurance that the Minister could give, which would reassure the operators of open access, is that GBR will not change the abstraction rate. The rate has been in operation for some time. It balances, on one hand, the cost to the taxpayer and, on the other, the benefit to the traveller in terms of improved connectivity and, in many cases, lower fares.
We know that the concern is justified from the letter that the Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander, wrote to the ORR back in January. The ORR is already mindful of the cost to the taxpayer—that is reflected in the abstraction rate—but the letter reminded it of that cost. There was a clear implication that not enough attention was being paid to that factor, hence the concern. I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances that, apart from the issue of the access charges addressed by my noble friend, the abstraction rate will not be altered either.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments look to ensure a fairness between Great British Railways operations and open access and freight operators in terms of charges and access to the track, and concern the change to the current role of the Office of Rail and Road. Since the publication of the Bill, there has been a big debate in the sector about this over the past 18 months or more. Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to change Great British Railways’ functions so that decisions about access to and the use of railway infrastructure would instead be carried out by the Office of Rail and Road, as is the case now, as he said. On the other hand, Amendment 221 approaches this differently, with a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process set out in the Bill. It would leave the function with GBR but bring in more of an appeals function.
The Bill is a real change to open access operations on the railway and it is right that we scrutinise how it will work in practice. As we have heard, a number of innovative open access operators are running good services with competitive fares. With the vast majority of passenger services being in public ownership, there needs to be confidence that Great British Railways is operating in a clear and transparent way, with an appropriate mechanism for challenge set at the right bar. There is concern that removing the current function of the Office of Rail and Road with regards to access will mean that Great British Railways will always prioritise its own services and may choose to not continue open access operations in the future—some of which are very successful, but there is a fear out there.
We have some concerns over this shift in power between the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road. We want to see the publication of decisions and any evidence that has supported decisions, as well as real engagement with passengers and representative bodies as timetables are developed and services are changed. Of course, freight comes in here too. Freight will be critical to help move lorries off our roads and grow our regional economies, so freight access is equally important. We need transparency and openness between Great British Railways and the other parties in this space in terms of track charges and access. I hope that the Minister will provide the assurance that industry would like to hear on this important change in legislation.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 16 and for this short debate. In the groupings for Committee, there are some very substantial numbers of amendments about access in groups 26 to 31, so I will answer these amendments very briefly because I am sure we will have very detailed debate subsequently. Indeed, I will leave some of the points that noble Lords have made this evening in order to come back to them when we get to groups 26 and 31.
I want to be very clear that the existing access framework is, in our view, not fit for purpose. It is built on 30 years of complex legislation, regulations, contracts and codes. It requires Network Rail and the ORR to take decisions using inconsistent criteria, based on differing duties and objectives, with no common vision. Fundamentally, no single party is responsible for planning the best overall use of the network and ensuring that access decisions deliver that plan. The current system has too often been characterised by fragmentation and delay, and it is clear that nobody is in overall charge. That has led to inefficient use of capacity and decisions that serve neither passengers nor freight well.
There are clear examples of the consequences. The May 2018 timetable failure—the original catalyst for rail reform—saw punctuality and reliability plummet across large parts of the network. Keith Williams’ review highlighted how this was the result of a complex, fragmented system with no single person in charge. Timetables are often built by trying to piece together layers of past decisions and contractual rights. On the east coast main line, the current system resulted in years of decision-making paralysis, with neither Network Rail, the ORR or operators able to agree a timetable. Service improvements that were supposed to result from £4 billion-worth of taxpayers’ investment were delayed by several years. The only way this could be resolved in the end was by me, as Rail Minister, stepping in to make the decision that no one else wanted to, which is clearly not an acceptable outcome at all.
Noble Lords will recall last December, when the ORR ruled that the 0700 from Manchester Piccadilly to Euston would have to run fully staffed but with no passengers on it, against the wishes of both the operator and the network provider, which agreed that it should run. The ORR itself acknowledged that it did not have all the facts when it took that decision.
The current system has failed to unlock meaningful freight growth. Too often, the needs of freight operators and their customers have been put to the back of the queue. Paths labelled as “strategic freight” are not strategically planned at all and may not even join up, as they are often just a mixed bag of surrendered paths and leftovers.
In the current system there is no overarching strategy—no overall plan for how to make best use of the network—and where no single body has end-to-end authority, critical information can be missed, escalation is unclear and blurred accountability leads to capacity being used in ways that increase disruption, letting down both passengers and freight customers.
An integrated railway under GBR’s leadership is the only way to fix this. As the single directing mind for the railway, GBR will proactively plan how to make best use of the network. It will be empowered to ensure that access decisions take proper account of that plan, implementing an achievable and reliable timetable that makes the very best use of the limited capacity available. Better co-ordination of the timetable will minimise delays, improve reliability and reduce costs—and may well open space for new routes and services. For freight operators, the new system will provide much greater certainty about the capacity available for them to grow their services, with GBR enabled and empowered to protect that capacity. The truth is that, if we leave it as it is, the system will never change.
I will deal with the crucial distinction between Clause 60 and 63 when we get to the detailed debates, but in the meantime I do not accept Amendment 16, which would fundamentally undermine the purpose of these reforms. It is unacceptable and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment 221 would require the access and use policy to set out not only a process for dealing with disputes but a right of appeal. Of course I agree that GBR’s strong leadership under the new system must be accompanied by strong accountability. That is why the ORR will act as a robust and independent appeals body for access, capacity allocation and charging decisions made by GBR on its network. The ORR’s appeals function will provide a clear, credible and accessible route to challenge those decisions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I understand that we will be having a separate debate on this, but is the Minister able to give the assurance that I asked for that the abstraction rates will not be changed?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will not give it now but will come back to that in the debate. I should also say for the benefit of the Committee that Network Rail is publishing the access and use policy consultation tomorrow, which will apparently address the noble Lord’s questions on abstraction. I am sure we can debate his points further when we get to the detailed debate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it will not wash. The noble Lord did not give any explanation of why there should be an appeals system which cannot look at the merits of the case and cannot bind GBR. He says that we are going to come back and discuss this again. I am sure we will and I hope we will. We should be discussing it several times in Committee, and we will certainly be discussing it on Report. At the moment, I beg to withdraw my amendment, but I am absolutely clear that this will not wash.
Lord Moylan
“(e) such other body corporate as they see fit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to explore why the Bill places limitations on Scottish and Welsh ministers as to the manner of their exercising their functions relating to the railways or railway services.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Clause 4 deals with relations with the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales. I have a number of amendments here—five, in fact. They all appear in a sense to be relatively minor but they go to the heart of the devolution settlement. They raise the question of whether the Bill is in line with the new Prime Minister’s policy—I know he has not been elected to anything but he is the new Prime Minister—of making devolution a reality. I will run through the amendments fairly straightforwardly and leave it to others to debate them and the Minister to respond.
One of the things that can be done is that any combined authority or devolved authority has a right to request. I always find this slightly offensive, because we are a free country—everyone has a right to request something from the Minister—but apparently, this valued “right to request” is going to be given. You can go along and ask GBR if it will run a service local to you, which might even be branded your way, to which you might contribute some of the costs. That is the general idea. I can understand that in relation to English combined authorities but not the devolved Administrations.
For example, I do not understand at all why Scotland should be confined by statute to running that service using Great British Railways. If the path is available and the service can be run, why should Scotland not make its own choice about who the operator of that service should be? As I understand it, that would not be possible under the Bill; it would have to be a GBR service. I think that is a bit insulting to Scottish devolution. The same applies to Wales. My Amendment 21 would correct that and allow them to exercise railway functions through a body corporate other than Great British Railways.
Amendment 145 goes hand in hand with Amendment 146, because they relate to Scotland and Wales. They relate to the fact that, under the Bill, there will have to be a memorandum of understanding between Great British Railways and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. There is a great deal of reliance on memoranda of understanding in the Bill, but we never see them and have no entitlement to do so. I am not saying that they will not be published, but I am not sure that the Government are under an obligation to publish them. They are so much a part of this Bill, but their substance is being concealed from us in Parliament and wrapped up in documents that are ancillary to the main agreement. My Amendments 145 and 146 would require those memoranda to be laid before Parliament before they could come into effect.
Finally, I have the paired Amendments 294 and 295. Again, one relates to Scotland and one to Wales. Amendment 294 relates to Clause 82. There is something fantastically cheeky in Clause 82, which reads:
“Great British Railways must consult the Scottish Ministers before making a decision within subsection (2)”—
which would be a decision about cross-border services and additions to a part of the railway network operated by Great British Railways that is situated in Scotland—
“if it appears to Great British Railways that the decision will significantly affect the interests of Scotland’s economy or of persons living in, working in or visiting”
the area. I come back to a similar question I asked in the last group: what economic capacity would Great British Railways be employing to make disinterested decisions about whether something would have a significant effect on the interests of Scotland’s economy? Secondly, is it not more likely that the Scottish Government would be the appropriate body to make a decision about whether something will have a significant effect on the interests of the Scottish economy? My amendment would put that right by reversing it. Amendment 295 would do something similar for Wales.
There is a certain arrogance in the Bill, certainly with regard to local government in England, but the arrogance towards the Scottish and Welsh Governments is beyond the pale, given what the Prime Minister has been saying and what those Governments would accept. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will say that the matters to which I have drawn attention are slips in the drafting that he will be happy to correct, either through my amendments or amendments that he will draft and submit to us on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to talk to my Amendment 22 in this group. Before I do that, I might just say so to my noble friend that I see the point he is driving at with Amendment 21, but I think it is a little more complicated. It seems to me that this is about the circumstances that apply where the Scottish or Welsh Ministers wish to use Great British Railways or a company jointly owned by themselves and Great British Railways. In effect, they are not subsidiaries of Great British Railways: we can already see in the Bill this distinction between GBR companies and a company that is jointly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers and GBR.
They can use that to provide services but, as far as I can see, they are not prevented from doing the following. If you look at subsequent clauses, we have seen the whole process of designation of passenger services, which those of us who did the public ownership Bill will remember. They have to designate passenger services with a public sector company, but the definition of a public sector company in a later clause is not the same. It could be a company wholly owned by Scottish Ministers or by Welsh Ministers; they are not required to use Great British Railways. They could even do the same thing that the Secretary of State can, which is exempt services from designation, and then do the same as the Secretary of State does with TfL but in Glasgow, Cardiff and so on. So I think it is a little more complicated.
In particular, I think putting “other body corporate” in here is not necessary. More to the point, if I may say so to my noble friend, is to re-enter the question of the scope of who might provide designated services, which I know he will do with further amendments at a later stage.
Amendment 22, on my part, is just to see whether there is really a problem. At the point at which Scottish and Welsh Ministers look to change arrangements that they have made with Great British Railways to provide some services, they are required to consult with the Secretary of State and Great British Railways. However, those arrangements will necessarily lead to issues that need to be governed by the regulatory functions of the Office of Rail and Road and relate to the licensing of those operators through the ORR. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to require that Scottish and Welsh Ministers, at the point of making or changing those arrangements, should also consult the Office of Rail and Road in order to ensure that there is not a difficulty associated with what they are asking GBR to do on their behalf. The purpose of Amendment 22 is to put in that consultation with the ORR.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, these are interesting amendments. I have had several representations from the rail sector in Wales and Scotland, and they are clearly quite concerned.
The first question I probably need answering is on who will be owning and operating the infrastructure in Wales and Scotland. At the moment, in Scotland, it is done by Transport Scotland, and in Wales, I cannot remember but think it is different. Of course, both those organisations may, and do, operate passenger train services. Given the scope of the Bill, which we have been discussing at length today, will Transport Scotland and the Welsh Assembly be able to let their own contracts with GBR or an independent operator to run trains? Who will be responsible for managing the infrastructure if it goes wrong or needs maintenance, and for the issue in the amendment, which is about co-ordinating with the rest of the UK? To me, it is not clear at the moment, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could clarify. I am probably being stupid, but there we are.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I just want to speak briefly about three groups of amendments within this group. Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan has quite a lot to recommend it. The Bill, as set out, sensibly says that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should have a memorandum of understanding about how cross-border rail services should work. That is very sensible, but it seems to me that you would want to have the documents published at the same time; you want them on the same timeline because you want a GB rail strategy to be produced, given the way the rail network works. The whole point about GBR bringing together track and train and having some consistency means it seems very sensible that, if you are to have this memorandum of understanding between UK Ministers and Scottish and Welsh Ministers, you want them on the same timeline. Then what you publish is, in effect, a GB rail strategy with a level of consistency.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments rightly question the impact of this legislation on Scotland and Wales and the role of Scottish and Welsh Ministers in decisions, including cross-border ones. The discussion we have had is about what devolution really means in this context and the democratic accountability. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on these important points raised by noble Lords.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing I should say about this group is that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have been intensely involved in drafting the Bill, and both Governments are very supportive of it.
I turn to Amendment 21. Clause 4 enables Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make arrangements for their functions to be exercised by GBR, a GBR subsidiary or a company jointly owned. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted that correctly; he is absolutely right. It is an enabling power designed to support integration where that is considered beneficial. It does not prevent devolved Ministers from continuing to exercise their functions themselves, nor is it intended to provide a general power to delegate functions to any body corporate.
Indeed, under Clause 27, Welsh Ministers will continue to designate Wales-only services and Welsh components of cross-border services. Under Clause 31, Welsh Ministers may either provide those services themselves or secure their provision through the award of public service contracts. Similar powers exist for Scottish Ministers under Clauses 26 and 31. Of course, Scottish Ministers can decide to run their services through GBR or through their own operator. The Government therefore believe that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between preserving devolved responsibilities and enabling closer integration with GBR, where that is desired by Scottish or Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require the ORR to be consulted. Clause 4 already requires consultation with both the Secretary of State and GBR before such arrangements are made, varied or revoked. That is because GBR is the body that may be responsible for carrying out the function, while the Secretary of State has an interest in the wider operation and integration of the railway system, and because GBR will be operating devolved functions alongside reserved ones. They are therefore the parties best placed to provide input on these arrangements. Although the ORR plays an important role as the railway’s independent regulator, these arrangements concern the exercise of devolved functions and national versus devolved governance, rather than regulatory matters. We therefore do not consider an additional statutory consultation requirement to be necessary.
On Amendments 145 and 146, the Government fully support transparency and effective parliamentary scrutiny. That is precisely why we have already published the agreed memorandum of understanding with Welsh Ministers and a framework for the memorandum of understanding with Scottish Ministers. That has enabled Parliament to consider the proposed arrangements alongside the Bill. The memoranda of understanding are intended to provide a basis for joint working between UK Ministers and Scottish and Welsh Ministers on matters relating to rail services and funding. They are not legislative instruments but practical agreements to support effective intergovernmental working.
The amendments would require the MoUs to be published at the same time as the rail strategy and would impose a two-month period before they could come into force. However, the rail strategy and the MoUs serve distinct and seperate purposes. The rail strategy sets out long-term priorities and objectives for the railway, while the MoU supports collaborative working between the UK and Welsh or Scottish Governments. Requiring the two documents to be published at the same time would create unnecessary friction and delay. Similarly, requiring a two-month waiting period before an MoU could take effect would add process without materially improving oversight or outcomes.
Lord Harper (Con)
Can I just check that the rail strategy that the Secretary of State will produce will be a strategy for Great Britain, and that the memorandum of understanding will be about how that interacts? If the Secretary of State’s rail strategy is for England only, that does not make sense. What the Minister just said implies that the Secretary of State will produce a rail strategy for Great Britain, in which case there would not be any friction from ensuring that those documents were published together.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister responds to that point, I add that I am slightly confused because Clause 15, “Rail strategy”, says that the Secretary of State “may not” include provision relating to the functions of the Scottish Ministers, so it may be a rail strategy for Great Britain, but it cannot deal with the functions of the Scottish Ministers.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I say in response to noble Lords that the long-term rail strategy is for the whole railway. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are being consulted, but Scotland will also have a strategy covering its own functions because that is the meaning of devolution. I hope that is clear.
Lord Harper (Con)
I do not want to overly labour this point, but that is not very clear. The way it works at the moment is that the Scottish Ministers have a role in helping to shape—
Lord Harper (Con)
As I was just saying before we resumed, the advantage of a break is that I had a chance to slightly firm up my question. Before we broke for the Division, I was saying that I thought that not synchronising the rail strategy publication and the memorandum of understanding potentially meant not having a clear, joined-up strategy for Great Britain. I was asking the Minister whether the strategy that the Secretary of State had to produce was for Great Britain and, if so, whether it would not make sense to synchronise that with the memorandum of understanding.
Having had a chance to look at Clause 15, it is indeed the case that the Secretary of State is producing a strategy for the rail network in Great Britain—that includes Wales and Scotland—but it specifically must not contain provisions about functions of the Scottish Ministers, because that is clearly what the memorandum of understanding is going to do. In this case, I think the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan are very sensible. Otherwise, you will publish a rail strategy for Great Britain that has quite important functions for Scottish Ministers because they make the call on what Network Rail does on infrastructure in Scotland, for example. It does not make sense to not have that joined up.
I am very happy for the Minister take this away, because it will obviously have consequences, but synchronising those two events will drive very sensible and good behaviour in the way the department interacts with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and will be an improvement in having a better rail strategy for the whole of Great Britain.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I, too, have done a little bit of homework while we had the Division. The important thing he draws our attention to is Clause 15(3). Because
“The rail strategy may not contain provision about functions of the Scottish Ministers”,
in effect, it is the rail strategy for England and Wales. Because the rail strategy for Scotland is the function of Scottish Ministers, they will publish a strategy to cover Scotland. It will reflect the devolution funding arrangements and the responsibility for the railway in each country. We are working very closely with Scotland, and GBR will have to work very closely with Scotland, as will the Secretary of State, to ensure that the strategies make sense and, therefore, that the GBR business plan makes sense.
Having said all that, I am still not sure that I can see the connection between the MoUs and the strategies. Indeed, we have been able to strike a memorandum of understanding and publish it with Welsh Ministers—and we have a framework for that in Scotland—without a long-term rail strategy. They are intended to provide a basis for joint working between UK Ministers and Scottish and Welsh Ministers on matters related to rail services and funding, but they are not the same as a strategy, which sets out what the intentions of those Governments are and will form the basis on which GBR will write a business plan.
I think my contention is the same. The rail strategy sets out long-term priorities and objectives for the railway, and the MoUs support collaborative working between the respective UK and Welsh and Scottish Governments. I see the difference between those two instruments—the strategies and the MoUs—but I do not see the need for a waiting period between them taking effect or for them to be co-ordinated. As I have said, we have published the MoU with Wales already and the outline of that for Scotland too.
Lord Harper (Con)
Here is my final point—as the Minister will be pleased to know. He has just, perhaps inadvertently, flagged that the drafting of the Bill in Clause 15 is not correct. The Secretary of State will not be producing a long-term strategy for the development and use of the rail network in Great Britain and the railway services that she wishes to see in Great Britain. She will be doing those things for England and Wales. The Bill should really reflect that because it is inaccurate. Again, I am happy for him to take it away, but I think he has let on at the Dispatch Box that the Bill is not correctly drafted.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord draws my attention to something which, having read it to him, I concluded myself. This is the purpose of Committee, of course: to discover things that you have not thought about. I am as willing as the next Minister, perhaps, to decide what to do. We will take that away, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. For the avoidance of doubt, I still do not accept the contention about the connections between the MoU and the strategies, but I accept the points that the respective boundaries of the strategies could be much better placed than they are.
Amendment 146 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, goes further on the provisions on the allocation of ticket revenue from cross-border services operated by Transport for Wales. We do not think that is appropriate. Such operational and commercial matters are more appropriately dealt with through established industry arrangements such as public service contracts and the Wales and borders agreements rather than through an intergovernmental co-operation agreement, which is fundamentally about the governance of GBR, so I urge the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
I turn to Amendments 294 and 295 on consultation. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are consulted on decisions that have a significant impact on their nations. That is precisely why the Bill already places a duty on GBR to consult them before making such decisions. The amendment would go further by requiring devolved Ministers to determine whether consultation was required. That would add significant delay for no practical benefit, as Scottish and Welsh Ministers would be required to review decisions that would often be irrelevant to them before steps can be taken. The approach could create uncertainty about when decisions can proceed and risk shifting the focus from effective engagement to procedural questions about whether consultation is required. Scottish and Welsh Ministers will also continue to have important mechanisms through which they can influence the railway, including their respective rail and transport strategies, their powers, which are strong, and guidance. The Government therefore consider these amendments unnecessary.
Finally, Amendment 296 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, specifies that GBR should consult on access decisions where they impact Welsh Ministers. Clause 82 already requires that GBR consults Wales on issues affecting it. That requirement would also extend to access decisions. Therefore, I can reassure the noble Lord that his intent has already been achieved by the Bill but, bearing in mind what he said in support of his amendment, I will write to him, and copy it to other noble Lords, about the ownership and control of infrastructure in Scotland and Wales now and in the future so that he and other noble Lords—though I see the noble Lord is not in his place—can be clear about the present and future arrangements, since I think what he said expressed a degree of confusion about them.
I finish by saying again, as I started with, that Scotland and Wales have been intensely involved in the drafting of the Bill and that both Governments are very supportive of it. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we see a pattern—there is always an argument as to why the bear in the front room should be able to make the decisions without constraint, and here we go with Scotland and Wales. If the Minister tells me that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are happy that Great British Railways, a largely unaccountable body that is largely concerned with English railways, should make a determination as to what is of economic significance to Scotland and Wales, and that they have had that question put to them, considered it squarely and come back and said “Yes”, then of course that is what the Bill should say. It strikes me as odd and not consistent with the general approach that the Scottish and Welsh Governments would take to these things. Beyond that, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on drawing out various points. I feel a swathe of government amendments coming on Report.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think there will have to be others as well. None the less, for the moment, I have done my best to defend the devolution settlement, keep up the policy of the Prime Minister and give Scotland and Wales a say over the future of their own economies in so far as they are affected by public transport. Having done that, I will subside and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Singh of Solihull
Introduction: Lord Stace
Data Security: UK Citizens
Lord Moraes
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to monitor the security and use of UK citizens’ data under agreements with third countries, including the Data Protection (Adequacy) (United States of America) Regulations 2023.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
The DCMS Secretary of State is required to monitor all jurisdictions with UK adequacy decisions, including the US, to ensure that all UK personal data transferred abroad continues to be protected to the UK’s high standards. DCMS works closely with our international counterparts and with UK departments to understand the implications of developments relating to our adequacy decisions for UK data subjects.
Lord Moraes (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. She will be aware that the House expressed concerns before the Recess about UK digital sovereignty and the way that non-UK entities own much of our digital infrastructure, invest in data centres, process the data of UK citizens in key public services and, of course, transfer the data within adequacy agreements, as she has just addressed. Can she reassure the House that the Government will pay close attention to the vulnerabilities of this country in having some limitations to our tech sovereignty?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I note my noble friend’s point about the safety, security and sovereignty of UK citizens’ data. This Government will continue to pay close attention to how UK citizens’ data is transferred overseas and processed by non-UK data controllers. For our adequacy decisions, DCMS undertakes active ongoing monitoring processes, including the tracking of changes to relevant legislative frameworks and case law within third countries.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the return of data protection to DCMS. The Government’s own Data (Use and Access) Act replaced the “essentially equivalent” test for adequacy for international data transfers with a lower threshold of “not materially lower”. Does the Minister accept that this weaker standard leaves UK citizens’ data more exposed to the gaps in foreign countries’ protections? What monitoring of that effect are the Government carrying out to safeguard real UK sovereignty over our data?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Our priority is the protection of UK citizens’ personal data, and we will monitor our adequacy decisions with this in mind. The DCMS has a statutory duty to monitor all our data adequacy decisions and a duty to amend or revoke them if the Secretary of State becomes aware that the standard has fallen below that of the UK GDPR. Officials are monitoring all existing adequacy decisions on an ongoing basis and the DCMS Secretary of State must be satisfied that the level of data protection afforded to UK data subjects in a given country or territory is not materially lower than that of the UK GDPR.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, given that the UK-US data bridge is estimated to be worth almost £1 billion to the UK economy and that, twice before, transatlantic data arrangements have collapsed following successful legal challenges, what are the Government doing proactively, with the US Administration, to strengthen the bridge now, rather than waiting for weaknesses to be exposed by a third legal challenge?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The United States is our close ally and tech partner and we are committed to ensuring that this delivers real benefits and protections for people on both sides of the Atlantic. British companies that contract with companies that have not signed up to US systems, and so are not covered by adequacy, will be obliged to ensure that there are contractual obligations for compliance with GDPR.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, according to an Answer to a Written Question that I received last week, the Government do not centrally record how much of Government’s critical digital infrastructure relies on cloud or computing services that are headquartered overseas or under the jurisdiction of a foreign Government. Will the Government take steps now to assess that exposure? Will Ministers commit to developing a digital sovereignty strategy to ensure that our national security and resilience, and the protection of citizens’ data, are not undermined by reliance on foreign-hosted systems?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The Government’s approach is to ensure that the UK has the right balance between access to the benefits of international data flows and carefully protecting both personal and non-personal data. This is underpinned by data protection law, UK security standards and established commercial rules.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, given the evolving legal landscape surrounding transatlantic data flows and potential future changes to US surveillance laws, what contingency plans do the Government have in place, should the current adequacy regulation be challenged in court? Under what specific conditions would the UK suspend the agreement in order to protect citizens’ privacy?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The Government take a balanced approach to this, ensuring that public sector systems are secure, resilient and effective while benefiting global innovation. The overarching point is that the Government remain committed to protecting UK citizens’ personal data and continuing to keep other countries’ obligations around personal data under careful review, with the Secretary of State for DCMS being satisfied at all times that the level of data protection afforded to the UK data subjects in a given country or territory is not materially lower than that of GDPR.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the amount, type and usage of data transmitted to China by Chinese-manufactured cars?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
That is a very specialist question. On my first outing on data at this particular Dispatch Box, I would like to say to the noble Lord that I would be more than happy to write to him with the details.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment has been made of the security risks associated with the use of US tech and digital suppliers, particularly given that the current US regime is focusing on protecting its technology from external regulation?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Risks linked to technology suppliers are managed through established security and resilience processes. Decisions in these areas are informed by evidence on security, reliability and long-term resilience. The Government seek to balance the benefits of secure international data flows with our high standards of personal data protection. We continue to monitor developments relevant to the US adequacy decision and to engage with international partners to ensure that our standards continue to be met.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I have long been concerned about the internet of things, especially the internet of things that we tend to buy on eBay or Temu or one of those predominantly Chinese importation agents. How can we be sure that there are not data flows going on, particularly with the firmware updates that are regular with many internet of things items? Do the Government have any strategy to look at this? I can only imagine that it is down to local councils to manage importation of goods at source—and I would hazard a guess that it is perhaps beyond them.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
DCMS aims to facilitate the flow of data to places that have high data protection standards, and will continue to monitor the threats to UK personal data. On the matter of other jurisdictions, including China, in determining where UK data can flow, we consider the risk to UK data subjects rather than jurisdiction.
No. 10 North
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gascoigne
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the cost of establishing No.10 North and relocating central government functions outside London.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, No. 10 North is central to the Prime Minister’s commitment to get good growth in every postcode, drive devolution and bring government closer to the communities it serves. It will put senior decision-makers in the same room as mayors, employers, councils and public services, so that decisions about this country’s economic future are no longer taken only in Westminster. The cost of establishing No. 10 North is covered by existing departmental budgets.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Having known the Minister for a number of years, I congratulate her not just on rejoining the Government but on her additional responsibilities at the Cabinet Office.
As a proud northerner, from God’s own county of Lancashire, I am genuinely delighted by the Government’s emphasis on the north, but I would hazard a guess that most people care more about fixing the issues that matter to them than the postcode from where it is being done. So, first, what specific and material issue will No. 10 North fix that Whitehall has been unable to? Secondly, am I right to assume, based on the Answer I just got, that the overall cost and the size of government will increase as a result of this additional Downing Street?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the second point, it will not necessarily increase but we will make sure that invoices and costs are reported in the normal way. On the noble Lord’s first point, I wrote down that he is from Pendle, just in case he went for an anti-Manchester perspective. From my perspective, I went to No. 10 North and spoke to the people working there. They are passionate about rewiring the state and making sure it works for people in every part of the country. Clearly, having the same conversations with the same people in Whitehall, in the same way, is not necessarily going to deliver anything other than the same results. No. 10 North carries the authority of the Prime Minister to drive forward his objectives, bringing decision-making long held by Ministers in Whitehall closer to the communities we all serve.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 14 of the 15 cities with higher than average productivity are in the south; the only exception is Edinburgh. No cities in the north, no cities in the Midlands —not even Birmingham or the famed Manchester. Will the Minister ensure that, to get value for money, she reports annually on how the Downing Street of the north is making a difference to our cities in the north and the Midlands particularly?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We intend that No. 10 North will make a difference for every part of the country. The noble Lord rightly identifies that not every part of the country has benefited equally from economic success in the past. People will not be able to stop us shouting about the success of No. 10 North in terms of delivery once we get going, but I am very happy to come back to your Lordships’ House and talk about it in more depth over the coming months.
Baroness Linforth (Lab)
My Lords, it is an interesting Question from the noble Lord, and of course, every Government should be mindful of the costs of doing business and the return on investment. With that in mind, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could inform us of the benefits that will accrue to the country from establishing No. 10 North.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend is right, and as the Question identifies, there have clearly been some costs associated with establishing No. 10 North. However, it is important to recognise that this office is going to sit at the centre of this Government’s agenda to deliver economic growth across all our regions. As the First Secretary of State informed the other place last week, it is vital that, to do this, we rewire the state to deliver the change people up and down the country voted for.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, No. 10 North is approximately 200 miles north of where we are. Perthshire, where I am from, is more than 200 miles further north than that. The north of Scotland is another more than 200 miles north of that. I wondered whether there were any plans to rethink the name “No. 10 North”—it does not feel right to someone who lives 200 miles north of it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a valid point. No. 10 North is in the north of England for the purposes of general geographic designations in this country. On the points he made about Scotland, in making sure that we recalibrate how the state works, including in respect of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we will be taking into account the needs of all those areas. We feel that this is a project, a way forward and a way of working that should benefit every part of the country—even those for whom No. 10 North is in the south.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I see that Ministers and senior officials will be mainly working from No. 10 North. Why does No. 10 south lack the prime ministerial authority to make good decisions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is quite clear that No. 10 just across the road does have the authority to make those decisions. As I said to noble Lords earlier, having the same conversations in the same place in the same room is not necessarily going to produce a different outcome. A number of Ministers have spent a considerable time in No. 10 North, and the Prime Minister is committed to working there on a regular basis. So far during his premiership, he has done so at least once a week.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I welcome the establishment of No. 10 in the north of England. If the Government agree that centralisation in London is a problem, should the answer not be to strengthen devolution across these islands, giving the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the powers and resources to act in the best interests of their peoples, rather than simply relocating functions within England?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure how it would have gone down with the Governments in the devolved Administrations if we had suddenly popped up with a new central government office. It is clear that there is no way we will succeed in rewiring the state if we do not take into account the devolved nations and their needs. Collaboration with the devolved Governments will be required to ensure the benefits of regional empowerment and of doing things differently, so that people feel that growth in every area. We need to make sure that we work very closely together, and Ministers are looking forward to close collaboration with the devolved Administrations to succeed in this.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place—again. Having worked in No. 10 and having had the enjoyable task of managing a Prime Minister’s diary, I know that time is the most precious commodity. There are sudden, unexpected events and logistical pressures. Can the Minister explain how practical implications such as the convening of a high-security meeting at short notice will be managed when the centre of government is effectively split between two centres—No. 10 and No. 10 North? Will there need to be a duplication of resources so that both centres are equally well equipped?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. I think both centres will be equally well equipped. I am very glad that I have never had to manage a Prime Minister’s diary. I would like to think that those who do and who are organising these meetings, which are often at very short notice, as the noble Baroness rightly said, are better equipped than I would be to make sure that everything is absolutely in the right place at the right time—including the Prime Minister.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, whatever the cost of No. 10 North, it pales into complete insignificance compared with the £1 billion in PPE contracts that the party opposite fraudulently gave its friends and others?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend’s words speak for themselves; I am not sure I have anything further to add.
Integrated Care Boards: Access to Services
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of access to primary and community health services by integrated care boards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, access to primary care is improving. The year June 2025 to June 2026 saw nearly 14 million more GP appointments compared with the same period in the previous year, and satisfaction when contacting a GP increased by over 14% compared with July 2024. For the first time, we have introduced a waiting time standard for community health services, and 37.6 million NHS dental treatment courses were delivered in 2025-26, which is 6.2% higher than in 2024-25.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, more than 600,000 people are waiting for hospital eye appointments, yet on our high streets there are optometrists who can provide urgent and minor eye care services, ensuring faster, more convenient access for patients. Will the Government require all ICBs to commission these basic community health services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The requirement on ICBs now is to focus on the strategic commissioning of health services and to be responsible for all but the most specialised services. Looking particularly at improvement of access to eye care, which is extremely important, the Government recently announced some £20 million to improve digital connectivity between primary care, optometry and secondary eye care. In all these ways, people will be far better served in their eye care.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do we think that the ICBs will have a problem? We know that they have a fragmented IT service as well as terrific work overload, and I believe that they are going to go down from 46 boards to 26. Surely this will cause them a problem in being able to get the access they need. It is a real worry for them and, I would think, even more so for the patients and their families who are trying to access primary and community services.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand why change creates worry, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the 10-year health plan set out the role of ICBs and, as I mentioned, for the strategic commissioning of health services and neighbourhood providers. I believe it will help to move towards fewer integrated care boards; there are currently 36. That will mean a pooling of budgets, greater efficiency, a reduction in running costs and more resources going to the front line. In all those ways, I intend for the change to deliver a better service locally.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, what are the criteria that ICBs plan to use to monitor 24/7 access to services in the community? At the moment, the pressures are on emergency departments, where ever more patients arrive, because that is where the lights are on. We have heard about the governance problems of clinical errors occurring where staff are under extreme pressure and patients are in corridors.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
One of the major shifts for the NHS now and in the future is about moving services from hospitals to communities; we had a Question on that just yesterday. It is important to say that the fundamentals of oversight, which we are improving, will be through the NHS oversight framework, which will be clear about delivery and approach. I should add that NHS England will be able to focus on helping the most challenged organisations with their performance and capabilities. If there are problems such as those that the noble Baroness described, they will be identified.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, access to women’s health services varies significantly across the country, with women from deprived areas and some ethnic-minority communities facing particular barriers. Therefore, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that ICBs not only commission but deliver equitable women’s health services in all regions, so that a woman’s ability to access timely diagnosis and treatment is not determined by her postcode, ethnicity or social deprivation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important set of observations. I can reassure your Lordships’ House that reducing inequalities is absolutely hard-wired throughout our renewed women’s health strategy. For example, we are redesigning clinical pathways for the most common women’s health conditions, and that will standardise and improve care across the country.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, when I speak to primary and community health providers, they often speak of two hierarchies that they face. At the ICB level, they say that large trusts dominate, whereas at the primary care level, they say that it is GPs who dominate, often at the cost of the voices of pharmacists, dentists and optometrists, who can take on more work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said. Underneath all these clinical hierarchies sit patients, who in some ICBs struggle to be heard. Given that the Government’s plans to rewire the state include abolishing local Healthwatch organisations, how will they ensure that independent patient voices—and I mean independent, not part of DHSC or from local authorities—are listened to and acted upon at all levels?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The patient’s voice is absolutely key, and that is why the Health Bill, which is currently in the Commons and will be introduced in your Lordships’ House tomorrow, is very focused on that. There will be much discussion in here. I can assure the noble Lord that patient safety, patient voice and patient experience are absolutely key, and that will be the case as we move forward to develop and further improve the NHS.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, there is increasing evidence that access to senior nursing staff in care homes and in the community keeps people out of A&E and therefore reduces many of the problems there. What responsibility will ICBs have to ensure that they purchase district nursing and community mental health training so that we have sufficient district nurses and admiral nurses to support the elderly population?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Getting the right staffing mix is key, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just spoke about what was described as a hierarchy. I am more interested, as I know noble Lords here are, in the team. The noble Baroness raised a very correct point about the role of nursing staff. These are decisions to be made locally. However, the requirement is on ICBs, and they will be measured—as will be contained in the national guidance—on getting the right staffing mix and the right people in place to meet the move to community health services and reduce unnecessary attendance and bed occupancy within hospitals.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, in some places, the relationship between community nurses and acute hospitals is good and patients receive what they think is a care pathway. In other places, the relationship between district nurses and GPs is incredibly problematic, and instead of there being a clear care pathway there is a blockage. What are ICBs going to do to make sure that everybody gets the best distribution of services, not the worst, as happens in some places?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is indeed the intention, as the noble Baroness rightly points out. In all this and in the discussion today, which is legitimate, transparency is important. As we committed to in our 10-year health plan, we have already launched a new set of league tables so that every NHS trust is ranked against clear and consistent standards and that we can see what progress is or is not being made. That will raise standards, tackle variations in care and allow a focus, where extra focus needs to be applied, to make changes. Previously, it was far too generic. This will allow us to focus.
El Niño
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of El Niño on climate patterns, flooding and food security in the UK.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the Met Office is continually updating forecasts for the ongoing El Niño event. Work is under way across government to assess any potential direct and indirect impacts. El Niño is expected to increase the likelihood of wetter and stormier conditions this autumn and winter. The Government are therefore monitoring potential implications for flooding, international food supply chains, energy resilience and food security. El Niño highlights the importance of climate adaptation and resilience planning work that is under way across government.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed Answer. Only last week, the Secretary-General of the United Nations indicated that the El Niño effect will be more pronounced in the next few months and will have direct implications for food security. I know, and welcome the fact, that our Labour Government have been working on that multi-departmental approach to dealing with the impact of climate change. Therefore, when will the Government unveil the strategy in 2026 to bring the UK closer into line with the EU in terms of emergency preparedness, and what they are likely to recommend to protect food security and to ensure that our rural communities are more resilient to the impact of El Niño?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is right to highlight the attention that is being paid to the impact of El Niño. Indeed, the Government Office for Science is undertaking work to assess the potential impacts on the UK, including implications, as I said, for the food system. Defra is working with the Met Office and other government departments to understand this and the wider risks to our national resilience. There is no current evidence that this event will lead to food security issues for the UK, although we continue to assess emerging evidence and forecasts, as well as industry intelligence. The Government published their annual statement on national resilience on 14 July this year, in which we announced a multi-year campaign to direct the public to updated guidance on simple steps that they can take to make sure they are prepared for risks such as power cuts or storms. This campaign, which builds on existing guidance that we already publish on GOV.UK/prepare, will launch later in the year and will indeed bring the UK into line with European peers, most of which already run similar awareness activity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, with consecutive droughts followed by a flood, the consequences for the UK are severe. The Government have tools in their toolbox, such as the Cunliffe report and the forthcoming clean water Bill. For what reason has the clean water Bill been delayed until next year, if that is the case?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to point out the importance of the Cunliffe report and the need to reform the water industry, but this is a very complex matter. As she noted, or at least implied, we are due to have a water Bill and, as was announced in the King’s Speech, it is coming. We will unveil further reforms as part of that process.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is faintly ironic for the Secretary of State to advise households to stockpile food when the UK has fallen to being 65% self-sufficient in what we eat? Given the UN’s warning that 50 million people worldwide face acute hunger from this super El Niño, what assessment have the Government made specifically of risks to British food security?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The comments my colleague the Secretary of State made simply called for awareness and preparedness. That is a precautionary route to take, rightly. As I said in answer to my noble friend, as it stands, the intelligence we have is that there is no evidence that the El Niño event will lead to food security issues for the UK. Of course, we work with organisations, including the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group, which monitors UK agriculture markets around issues of price, supply, inputs, trade and other recent developments, to keep this under review. As I said, as it stands, there is no evidence that this event will cause food security problems for our country.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, given the increasingly challenging impact of climate change on households, public services and business, have the Minister and his department given any consideration to ensuring that the UK’s national adaptation plan is a dynamic document that is regularly updated, rather than something that is static and updated every five years? Could he also update the House on any representations that he and his department have made to the new Chancellor to protect long-term funding, for instance for flooding, at future fiscal events?
Lord Katz (Lab)
We are very clear that although there is no clear evidence that climate change is making El Niño events more frequent, it is certainly the case that they are taking place against a backdrop of rising global temperatures and increasingly extreme weather, so they can indeed intensify existing risks. On the noble Lord’s point about the Treasury, we are committed to investing in improvements to water infrastructure and resilience. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that we expect more than £100 billion in investment to come in to improve the water infrastructure system, which will go some way to help improve the country’s resilience.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I recall that I asked a very similar Question to my noble friend’s a couple of months ago. I am slightly disconcerted by the assumption that this will somehow not have an impact on food supplies, because directly and indirectly it will. The most likely outcome of the enhanced El Niño—the once-in-a-millennium event that we are now being told it may be—is that far more extreme storms will affect us. My noble friend the Minister has responded very much on behalf of Defra, but I wonder what other departments are doing to prepare the sectors that they are concerned about. How will they withstand and respond to what may be extremely severe weather conditions?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for all his work on national preparedness. To be clear, I am not saying that there will not be any impact on supply chains but, on wider food security, we can at the moment have greater certainly around the evidence that there will be an impact. He raised a very important point about cross-government preparedness for the consequences of wetter weather and flooding. Activities are currently under way. The national flood response centre will be stood up for a testing exercise very shortly. The Floods Resilience Taskforce, which is across departments, government, and local, regional and devolved national Governments, is preparing an assessment of flooding risk and preparedness. It will meet in October to discuss those plans. I also note that Flood Action Week begins next month on 12 October and it coincides with national resilience week, which will help combine the importance of these messages.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, given that we will see some effects from these weather patterns and that they will devastate parts of the country, can the Minister assure the House that, in preparing for this, proper consideration is being given to planning and training of Reserve Forces in response to local flooding and other severe weather conditions, given that the military will almost certainly be called on to support the other emergency services?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. The use of both normal and Reserve Forces in these situations is important. That is exactly the sort of issue that the Floods Resilience Taskforce will look at in its preparedness.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government accept that it is our own brilliant British farmers who can provide food security, but they are being punished for their efforts by the family farms tax? Why are the Government refusing to listen to the NFU and its 43,000 farming members who remain opposed to the policy as the wrong approach, or to major accountancy firms that confirm that the policy will introduce considerable challenges for those affected?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I fear I will repeat the Answer that my noble friend Lady Hayman gave from the Front Bench yesterday. We recognise the importance of our farming sector. We are finding policies that work for rural areas, which include support through rural rate relief, small business rate relief, a high VAT registration threshold and small profits corporation tax rate, as well as things such as reduced red diesel rates. We are working to support the farming sector.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you.
The worsening and more erratic behaviour of El Niño is simply because of climate change. We have a climate crisis.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
It is not because of climate change. El Niño pre-dates climate change.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Keep quiet, Archie.
The fact is that fossil fuel burning is a direct cause of our climate crisis, so why have the Government got the reopening of the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields on the menu? Why not just say that that is wrong?
Lord Katz (Lab)
It is lovely that we have had the opportunity to hear from the noble Baroness. A little bird made me think that we might get on to Jackdaw and Rosebank. I want to be very clear: both those fields are subject to a lot of regulatory processes. The public notice periods were open and closed on 10 August and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. My colleague, Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Secretary of State, will consider the representations that have been received and will make decisions on each project in due course. I am afraid that noble Lords will not hear anything further from me on that subject.
Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Gardiner of Kimble.
Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 30 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.
Criminal Justice Reform
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the exodus that we have just seen was about as chaotic as the Government’s plans that we are about to debate. However, I thank the Minister for providing us with the opportunity to ask questions.
This latest Statement represents the fifth early release scheme that has been announced since the Prime Minister took office less than two months ago. With every new announcement, victims have been left in doubt as to which criminals will be released early. I hope that the Government recognise the impact that their lack of direction will have caused.
The Minister in the other place set out that the amended early release scheme will operate for the foreseeable future, as the Sentencing Act 2026 is the basis on which standard determinate sentences will be governed. However, given that the Act, as passed by Parliament, did not exclude any of the exemptions that were announced last week, I hope that the Minister will understand why questions remain. It is right that those convicted of the crimes set out by the Justice Secretary are exempt from the early release scheme.
If noble Lords cast their minds back to January, when the House debated the Report stage of this very Act, they may remember an amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie that would have achieved a very similar outcome. That amendment would have excluded a number of dangerous criminals—those serving time for some of the most serious offences—from early release.
However, the Government resisted our Conservative amendment and prevented it going into the Act. The Government were warned that the Act would reduce the time spent in prison for more than 60% of rapists and more than 80% of child sex offenders. Now, nine months later, the Government have belatedly accepted the problems with their early release scheme. Why has it taken them so long to acknowledge the warnings from my noble and learned friend? What has changed in their assessment of available prison spaces between January and September that they can now include these exemptions when they resisted them earlier this year?
There is a further important point, which I ask the Minister to consider very carefully. The statutory instrument that establishes the early exemptions says:
“The provisions listed in regulation 2 do not come into force in relation to a sentence for an offence listed in the Schedule to these Regulations”.
In other words, it is a commencement issue; it stops it coming into force. The Sentencing Act 2026 has a commencement provision. The Secretary of State has the power to commence the early release scheme on different days for different purposes. You can have a postponed commencement for offences that are subject to the early release scheme under the 2026 Act, but you can have only a postponed commencement; you cannot have no commencement.
As the Minister knows, there is case law to the effect that a permanent failure to commence the early release scheme in full would be beyond the powers of the Secretary of State because it would frustrate the will of Parliament in passing the legislation in the first place. So there is a real conflict here between government comms and government policy. Government comms are telling the media that the exempted serious offenders will remain behind bars, full stop. The mechanism that Ministers are using appears to be only temporary. Can the Minister resolve that conflict by confirming to us today that the carve-out in these regulations is, in fact, only a temporary carve-out? Will the Government therefore bring forward substantive amendments to the 2026 Act? If so, when? If he cannot confirm that today, will the Minister recognise and confirm that he has at least taken into account the real risk that this statutory instrument will be successfully overturned, following judicial review?
I turn now to IPP sentences. I acknowledge that 99% of IPP prisoners have served longer than their original tariff. Equally, of course, those prisoners were given those sentences due to the risk that they posed, so we have to consider public safety. The Minister in the other place outlined that the Government will introduce legislation on this matter. Is the Minister able to help us on whether that will be primary or secondary legislation? Is there a more specific date for its introduction than “soon”, which is one of those rather elastic words when used by Government Ministers for legislation? I ask the Minister to outline, if he can, what safeguards will remain in place to ensure that prisoners still considered too dangerous to be released are not released and that any risk to victims is, of course, taken properly into consideration.
The Minister in the other place did not share a particular target or timeline by which the Government expect to deport foreign national prisoners or to answer the question of how the Government intend to overcome the barriers posed by, in particular, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the Minister set out the Government’s plans for how they will address those barriers and provide either a date by which they expect to remove all foreign national prisoners or a target number of how many they intend to remove by the end of this year? These are pressing issues; I hope that the Minister will be able to address them.
I have one final, short point. Arising from the Statement, the Government have pledged a prison-building programme that will, we are told, create 14,000 new prison places by 2031—but the problem is now. There are currently 4,000 operational prison places not in use for reasons ranging from regulations to officer shortages. What steps are the Government taking to utilise those spaces?
These matters are all of serious concern to victims. As I say, the Government have now made five different announcements on the early release scheme. I hope for clarity’s sake—and, perhaps, for the Minister’s sake as well—that this is going to be the last one. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my questions.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we agree with the Statement that the Government clearly inherited a crisis of prison spaces, and a crisis in our criminal justice system as a whole. Frankly, the crisis was clearly attributable to many years of neglect, principally under the last Government. The Sentencing Act was a timely response to that crisis of available prison space. It is unsurprising that, as events have developed, the implementation of the Sentencing Act has changed, and the response of the Government is acceptable in that regard.
We are content to see that a great deal is being done for victims and victim support but concerned to know that public confidence in tagging and the other measures that are proposed to increase confidence and security among the public are matched by an increase in concern for the welfare of victims generally and the availability of services to those victims.
The provision of probation services plays a considerable part in the Statement. Our concern is that the resources available from the welcome allocation of £700 million for probation services by the end of this Parliament will be insufficient given the increased demands of more prisoners released into the community, more tagging, more restrictions and more exclusions, which are designed to increase confidence and security among the public. What are the Government’s plans in the event that the resources for probation prove insufficient? How far are they able to say that there will be an increase in the £700 million allocation?
I turn to prison building. There is in the Statement a pride taken in the fact that more prison spaces are to be made available. However, prison building is not the whole answer. We need to move to a more humane system that prioritises reduction in reoffending, reform and rehabilitation over simply providing more space. We have overcrowded and unhealthy prisons, many of which need replacement, but new prisons take a great deal of time to build. There are delays in planning, in getting planning permission, in design and in building new prisons. Can the Minister give us details of those delays in the prisons that have been recently opened?
The Statement also talks about building more cells within existing prisons. That is well and good, but the problem may be that those new cells in existing prisons will put more pressure and more need for spaces on the rest of the facilities in those prisons. How far have the Government considered ways of mitigating that?
Finally, on a more positive note, we very much welcome the commitment to legislation to end the complete scandal of IPP sentences before the end of this Parliament. It is monstrous that a sentence that was abolished in 2013 should still be keeping prisoners behind bars when those prisoners would have been released years ago had they been given sentences that fitted their crimes.
I hear the concerns about security. Nevertheless, prisoners on determinate sentences are released into the community, and it is welcome to hear that the same is going to happen for IPP prisoners. We accept the invitation to work cross-party with the Government to work out how this can be achieved, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister today the detail of how this is going to be achieved within the timescale and what measures that are not currently in place will be taken to that end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest. I was the lead non-executive director and chaired the agency board of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service until March 2025. Last week the Lord Chancellor set out in the other place changes to the implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026 to strike a better balance between protecting prison capacity and protecting the public from dangerous offenders. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, indicated, the Government recognise the uncertainty that victims have faced over the summer. When they are told that an offender may be released earlier than they expected, I have no doubt at all that it can be extremely distressing. I will say bit more about how we propose to support, and are already supporting, victims in a moment.
Victim liaison officers will be engaging directly with victims opted in to the victim contact scheme, which this Government have expanded in recent legislation, so that they understand how their individual cases are affected. We are also attempting to trace victims who are not in the scheme. This is backed by £18.9 million for victim support, including a dedicated helpline and specialist support for victims of violence against women and girls. The Government recognise that victims’ concerns are increased by uncertainty. The whole purpose of making these changes to the exemptions is because we have listened to victims. That is the basis on which we are proposing to make these changes. It is why the Government were determined to look again at these changes, which never applied to some of the most serious violent and sexual offences or life sentences.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that of course I remember the debates on the Sentencing Bill. I was here throughout. I suppose I will not be the first or the last Minister to say that we are doing something different from the things I objected to in the past. We have now, rightly, also excluded rape, serious child sex and grooming offences, manslaughter, other unlawful killing offences, and indecent assault, which had been used to prosecute historic child sex abuse. We acknowledge the public concern. That is why the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have initiated these changes and that is why we have made the announcement. We have listened to victims—that is why we are doing these things—and we want to continue to do that.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made about commencement, the Act has already been commenced. Primary legislation is not needed in the short term, but we will pursue it when parliamentary time allows. We must, however, continue to be honest about why these reforms were introduced. When we took office in 2024, prisons were regularly at 99% of their capacity. Running out of places risked paralysing the criminal justice system and we acted to avert that crisis, but prisons continue to operate near their limit.
I have been involved with the subject for many years now. This is not a new problem. This goes back to 2022. I have discussed it—
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, it goes back beyond that, but the intensity has not gone away. The answer cannot be a succession of emergency measures. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said the Government had introduced various emergency measures. Well, we needed to, because the previous Government refused to act. Parliament legislated through the Sentencing Act for a sustainable model in which some offenders spend less of their sentence in custody, depending on their behaviour, before continuing to serve their sentence under intensive supervision in the community.
Much of the debate about the changes we are making to the Sentencing Act has simply not taken account of the changes we are making in the supervision arrangements. I am happy to say more if noble Lords want to ask me, but it is a different proposition that is now being proposed for the second third of the earned progression model by probation staff. Probation staff do an extraordinarily difficult job protecting the public, and I want to pay tribute to them. It is easy to be critical of both prison and probation staff, but I regard them as heroic and doing jobs that many of us would find almost unconscionable.
Working closely with the police, we have given them a much more robust range of measures to manage offenders outside prison, and we are building a very different Probation Service. These measures can include curfews, exclusion zones and, for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, new restriction zones, which will tightly constrain their movements, with serious breaches of these conditions potentially resulting in recall to prison. The purpose of probation, as we are now conceiving and structuring it, is about controlling people’s movement, knowing where people are and being able to take action. We are making it possible for probation officers to know where tagged offenders are in real time. That has not been possible before, so it is a really big change.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we recognise the pressure that probation already faces, and now we are asking it to do more. That is why, as he noted, we have invested an additional £700 million in probation and community services by the end of the sentencing review period. We have also hired 2,300 more trainee probation officers. The recruitment of new probation officers has gone well, and we plan to bring on board 1,300 more by March 2027.
We have made substantial progress on productivity in probation through the introduction of Justice Transcribe, and we have reduced probation officer case loads by 25%. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Timpson for his work in this area; he was relentless in his focus on improving probation. I think he is still in his place—yes, he is. I am delighted to have him as my guardian angel on my shoulder.
I said earlier that we cannot allow our prisons to return to the cliff edge that we faced in 2024. Changes to the implementation of the Sentencing Act inevitably have an effect on prison capacity, and we have a duty to ensure that there is enough space in prisons to meet demand. The Lord Chancellor has therefore brought forward £110 million to convert existing prison spaces into cells. We are also accelerating current builds and securing sites for future prisons. This will help us to reach our ambitious target of creating 14,000 additional prison places by 2021, of which 3,200 have already been delivered.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked me about planning difficulties and so on. I am happy to give him more detail later, but we have made a good deal of progress on acquiring land and have speeded up the planning process.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, we are also freeing up capacity by accelerating the removal of foreign national offenders: I am sure I will come back to that. We will shortly commence a power under the Sentencing Act allowing eligible offenders to be removed immediately after sentencing. That will not include dangerous offenders.
My time is up, but I want to address the points that were made about IPP. This is a very significant change. We can talk at greater length on noble Lords’ questions about how we are going to go about this, but taking those sentences off the statute book is an absolute priority and would still be an absolute priority even if the prisons were half empty.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, with regard to excluding those convicted of manslaughter from early release, should we not keep in mind that manslaughter involves varying degrees of culpability, from the very serious to those which are less serious? There are cases involving, for example, a high degree of provocation or diminished responsibility, or, for example, a common assault where a single blow fells the victim who falls, hits his head on a table and dies. These are offences which vary in culpability to a high degree and I suggest that they should not be classed in one single spectrum.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with those comments from the noble Viscount. That is absolutely right. We obviously have to be consistent in the way we apply these exemptions, but the variation he points to is exactly right.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lord, I warmly welcome this Statement. The Government’s commitment to end the IPP scandal, as has been mentioned, is long overdue. A transition with public protection at its heart is the right way forward, but may I suggest that we start straightaway with what I call the low-hanging fruit: the IPP prisoners who have already been found safe for release but have been recalled to custody for no further offence? That is about 80% of the recalls. Around 1,000 IPP prisoners could be released safely under supervision like this, so will the Government consider this option as a matter of urgency?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done, along with many other noble Lords on all sides of the House, to move us forward on the question of IPPs and how we regularise the situation. I should reinforce this: it goes without saying that we are not going to release people the Government or Parole Board think are dangerous, and we will put in place arrangements to make sure that we do not.
On recall specifically, we are planning to consider whether we can make more use of the risk-assessed recall review. I am happy to discuss this with my noble friend and others to address some of the concerns raised, but the recall powers are there for a reason and we do not propose to get rid of them. We are proposing to make sure that they are used in a way that keeps the public safe, but does not keep people in unnecessarily.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, wants to get up, but I want to respond quickly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about implementation. It is obviously very early days. The Prime Minister has made a commitment to legislate in this Parliament. That is a major step forward and I absolutely undertake to keep the House, and noble Lords who are interested in this, up to date as our thinking develops. But I am sure he understands that I cannot explain precisely how we are going to do it now.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, also on IPPs, we have failed so many people. So many of those prisoners were not able to access the courses that they were supposed to undertake to qualify them to apply for parole and so on. They must have been damaged by what has happened and the length of time they have had to spend in prison which they should not have done. What are we going to do to support that cohort of people?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. That is exactly what we are thinking about now. As we go forward with these plans on IPPs, we are actively considering how we support them, before release and afterwards. It is absolutely shocking that 80% of the unreleased IPP prisoners—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned this statistic—have served more than 10 years over their tariff. Of course that has had an effect on them and we must make sure that we understand and mitigate that effect, not just from the point of view of public protection but for the welfare and dignity of those people. I still believe in the welfare and dignity of prisoners; I know that is old-fashioned.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this Statement, particularly the highlight on IPP prisoners. However, the approach still feels piecemeal, driven too much by ill-informed public narrative and wrongly focusing the problem on prison capacity. Does the Minister agree that the focus needs to be on reducing offending and reoffending, with the solutions being evidence-led to benefit victims, offenders, families and communities together? Will he say what progress has been made in response to recommendation 5.1 of the Independent Sentencing Review, namely, that we should:
“Launch a public awareness campaign on sentencing”,
because in recent weeks we have seen the consequences of this huge void?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for those observations. I disagree only with the comment about the ill-informed public narrative. There is a need for us to better explain to the public what we are doing and why we are doing it, particularly, as I have said, the intensive community supervision that we are talking about in the second phase of the progression model. The Government are still committed to the progression model; it is in the legislation, and we will take it forward. I absolutely accept the challenge that we need to do better at communicating with the public.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I was Justice Secretary when we abolished IPPs in 2012. Nobody in Parliament then would have believed that, 14 years later, we would still have 2,000 people being held in prison indefinitely without release. It is not the case that they had all been sentenced because they were dangerous; IPPs were beginning to be used by many courts as a routine sentence for comparatively minor criminal offences. If those 2,000 people had been given the normal determinate sentences that we now have, every one of them would have been released some time ago without further process.
It is quite certain that, when the 2,000 are released, several of them will commit quite serious offences and come back before the court. Then, of course, there will be outrage led by campaigners and, understandably, by victims and so on. There is a danger that, to guard against that, the Government will legislate for all kinds of constraints on the release of the IPP prisoners, and I fear that, in a few years’ time, we will find that 1,000 or so are still in prison on indeterminate time. Of course, the Government have to look at legislation, but will the Minister try to ensure that it is not based on ultra caution and trying to avoid some future turmoil, and that it is mainly based on the belief that all these people should be free and only in exceptional circumstances should those that are an obvious danger to the public be kept in custody?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, did as Justice Secretary, particularly in relation to young offenders. On the specific point about IPP, I take his warning very seriously. This will be a very heated debate, and I shall appreciate the support of all noble Lords in taking this forward in the way the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, suggested. The Government do not want to be risk averse, nor guided by ill-informed public opinion, but we want to take victims into account, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. However, his warnings will be ringing in my ears as this goes forward.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, I turn to the cause of the prison problem. In my time in the law, I have seen sentences steadily increasing, so that today they are more than twice as long as when I started at the Bar, and far longer than sentences in most European countries. The cause has generally been a knee-jerk reaction to perceived demand from the public for greater punishment for particularly unpleasant instances of a crime, so sentences have been increased by the legislature. Does the Minister consider that this trend, which shows no signs of abating, ought to be examined very carefully, so that sentences are not increased without due regard to the consequences this will have?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The observation that sentences have doubled at the hands of legislators over a few decades is at the heart of the way we are progressing with the Sentencing Act and creating a different structure for these things. I do not know what the intention was, but if it was to win public confidence in reducing crime by doubling these sentences, it has palpably failed. Of course, there are several objectives—not competing ones—that we need to take into account: seeing that justice is done, taking the views of the victims into account, and making sure the public understand why the sentences imposed are the ones being imposed. But we must proceed with all those objectives in a considered and holistic way. That is what seems to me to have been missing.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in what appears to be plucking figures out of the air, we are told that between 200 and 900 new cells are going to be created by the conversion of laundries, office spaces and storage areas. Can the Minister at least assure us that every one of those new cells will be fitted with automatic fire-detection equipment? Secondly, can he tell us where the staff are going to come from to supervise the prisoners in those cells?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
We will of course take all the standard precautions, including fire safety, in the provision of these new cells. They are not cheap—that is not a secret —and I think the Lord Chancellor said that the numbers will be in the middle of the range the noble Lord suggests. I agree that we need to make sure that these places are properly staffed. On increases in capacity, as noble Lords know, I am not generally one for blaming the previous Government, but they created 500 new places net in 14 years; we have created 374 in two years.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, who I believe is actually interested in this subject, that this is not a zero-sum game and year zero is not 2024. I pointed out to the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw in July 2007 in the other place that, thanks to the Blair-Brown regime creating 3,000 new criminal offences through 65 new Acts of Parliament that affected the criminal law, the prison population increased. What they forgot about was the need to create prison capacity to put all these new prisoners in. When Lord Hurd of Westwell was Home Secretary in 1990, the prison population was 40,000; it is now just short of 88,000. I am not making a party-political point, I promise, but I do find it a bit boring when Ministers in this Government say it was all the fault of the 2010 to 2024 Government and has nothing whatever to do with what happened before.
Let me give the Minister a gentle suggestion. His noble friend Lord Woodley, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I earlier this year put forward Amendment 96 to the then Sentencing Bill, which would have allowed a panel of judges to reconsider the imprisonment of those prisoners on IPP sentences. Could he have a look at it and see if he can bring it back? It would take a one-clause Bill, which we could get through this House in 20 minutes—and through the other House in God only knows how long. But we could pass that law to improve the condition of the people my noble friend Lord Clarke has mentioned, and to some small extent reduce the overcrowding of our prisons, which cannot function if they are overcrowded. We just churn people round and round and round. It is an expensive waste of human life.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord. I am interested. I hope I sound interested. I have been interested in all this for a very long time. In fact, I am starting to bore even myself, not just the noble and learned Lord. But I take what he said seriously. As I say, in general I am not one for blaming the previous Government. I absolutely recognise that this has been going on for a long time now and we have not managed to expand the prison estate. There have been successive announcements, but I think we are making some progress in that regard. We are not going to get down to the sorts of numbers that the noble and learned Lord is talking about—he knows that—but we have to make those commitments on prison building.
On IPPs, I will absolutely look at the amendment that the noble and learned Lord proposed. Obviously, at this stage, we are working our way through exactly how we do this, and I am sure I will be back before your Lordships at the Dispatch Box before long to set that out.
There is one other thing, which I should have mentioned when the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, was speaking. My noble friend Lord Blunkett, who cannot be in his place today, said to me that these sentences had not worked in the way they intended, which is a kind of confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the removal of foreign national offenders and how that was to be a priority. I am sure that the House welcomes that, but I did not hear an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, about the changes in the application of the relevant provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights, which would potentially make it much easier to remove foreign national offenders. Can he tell us when we can expect these changes? Also in terms of changes, one of the problems that we heard a great deal about from his predecessor was the backlog of cases, which of course meant that people were in prison for longer than necessary, often awaiting trial. Can he tell the House whether the proposed changes to trial by jury are still part of the Government’s plans or not?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Foreign national offenders have the right to appeal their removal, but this Government are already tightening how the right to family life in the ECHR is applied to our Immigration Rules so that it is no longer abused, as part of our immigration White Paper. The Government’s view is that we do not have to withdraw from the ECHR to deliver meaningful change. On the question of trial by jury, we will be discussing the Courts and Tribunals Bill before long, I am sure.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, we have more of our population in prison than most other countries. Will that situation not continue and get even worse, and promote even more crises, until the Government explain to the public that enormous resources are spent building and staffing prisons and that those resources are not being used in the way most likely to reduce reoffending?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I need to be straightforward with the noble Lord. Prison numbers are not going to come down quickly; in fact, they are going to rise. That is why we are building new prisons. A number of noble Lords have asked about reducing reoffending. The Government have done a great deal about reducing reoffending. Indeed, HMPPS had a great deal of support from the previous Government, financially, to build up our capacity for housing and for drug treatment, and my noble friend Lord Timpson did a great deal on the employment front. But I should say that what will not reduce reoffending, in any circumstances, is overcrowded prisons with overstretched staff operating in an environment that is extremely disruptive. If we want people not to reoffend, the way to achieve it is to have highly motivated staff working in a reasonable way, with the support and the facilities that are available, in the way that my noble friend Lord Timpson sought to achieve.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s early release scheme has clearly created a lot of concern among the wider public, so can the Minister provide any data on how many offenders who have been released under this scheme have since been returned to prison? Can he also commit to providing regular data updates on any prisoners who have to be returned to prison after being released early?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Well, these arrangements are not coming in until the beginning of October.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There have been prisoners released at the end of their sentences for a long time. We do publish data on prisoner releases and will continue to do so.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have the privilege of serving on the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Domestic Abuse Act, and I am reassured by the Minister’s focus on victims. Obviously, we are liaising closely with both the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, and I can assure him that there continues to be a very high level of concern among victims, not least because of the failures of communication in making clear to them, and, quite often, their children, what degree of harm they may be in the way of. I will ask one specific question about the response to breaches of either exclusion zones or restriction zones. Those will be only as effective as the monitoring of, and the responses to, any breaches. If an offender wants to breach, they will breach. What processes are in place to ensure that probation receives timely notification of any breach, and that the police can react swiftly? Will responses to breaches actually keep the victims safe in the moment, or will they simply be identified and acted on retrospectively?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work he has done on this; we have discussed it many times. On his specific question, I think I have already indicated that, under the way we will be managing probation data, probation officers will know the whereabouts of offenders on tags in as close as possible to real time. At the moment, that is not the case.
The key thing in relation to domestic abuse victims is, as I have said, that the way in which they feel safe, and are safe, is if the system—the Probation Service—knows where people are and what they are up to, and can keep victims safe from access by those people. The noble Lord knows that what we have rolled out in DAPOL—domestic abuse perpetrators on licence—has been very successful. We have introduced 2,000 of these and will roll them out across the country by the end of the year.
With domestic abuse, it is one thing ensuring that justice is done and getting a trial and so on, but in my experience of talking to domestic abuse victims, the primary thing is that they want to feel safe, and they want their families and their children to feel safe. The way in which we can achieve that is, in large measure, in the short term, partly through the intensive community supervision provisions that we are making.
I am out of time—I find it difficult to shut up on this subject—but may I make one final offer to your Lordships? Because we have had a number of questions about probation, I will arrange for an all-Peers presentation on the changes we are making, in particular the intensive supervision model, including in relation to domestic abuse. I want noble Lords to really feel they have understood those things, and then I will be happy to take any further questions.
Armed Forces Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
“Service of notices by email(1) RFA 1996 is amended as follows.(2) In section 32 (call out of persons who have entered into special arrangements)—(a) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”;(b) in subsection (7) after “subsection (6)” insert “or (6A)”.(3) In section 43 (call out of special members)—(a) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”;(b) in subsection (8) after “subsection (7)” insert “or (7A)”.(4) In section 58 (call out of members of a reserve force on authority of call-out order)—(a) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”;(b) in subsection (8) after “subsection (7)” insert “or (7A)”.(5) In section 70 (recall of persons on authority of recall order)—(a) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”; (b) in subsection (8) after “subsection (7)” insert “or (7A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause enables certain notices given under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to be sent to persons by email in addition to the current provisions of the Act enabling service by post.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 38 and 39 in my name are needed to make improvements to the Bill.
Amendment 38 makes a simple but important modernising change. It will allow formal call-out and recall notices for reservists to be sent electronically, in addition to the existing postal route, ensuring that our legislation reflects the way people communicate today. The existing postal system will remain available where needed.
When time matters most, electronic communication can provide faster delivery, greater assurance that notices have been received, and a more responsive process for communicating with reservists.
This is not simply an administrative improvement. The strategic defence review emphasised the importance of national resilience, preparedness and the role of our strategic reserves. If we are to strengthen readiness across defence, we must also ensure that the systems underpinning mobilisation are agile and fit for purpose.
In a crisis or national emergency, speed of communication can be critical. This amendment helps ensure that we can reach reservists more effectively, supporting a force that is ready to respond when the nation requires it.
It is a practical and proportionate measure that forms part of our wider effort to update our reserves legislation. It retains existing safeguards, modernises an outdated process and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to building a more resilient, prepared and responsive Reserve Force for the future.
Finally, Amendment 39 is needed to make a drafting correction. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, this is a very sensible amendment and I support it. In the world in which we now live, and with the way in which we communicate with one another, are there people in our Armed Forces already thinking ahead to different, more urgent ways of being in contact; for example, via WhatsApp? Email may not be the only way we can use modern technology to achieve the ends set out in Amendment 38.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that these government amendments are limited and make perfect sense. Sending notices by email makes sense. I would be concerned about formal communications being sent necessarily by forms of social media, but, equally, it would be sensible for His Majesty’s Government to keep open the opportunities of using whatever modes of communication are relevant at the time.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I do not have too much to say on this group of two government amendments, so I will keep it brief.
I understand entirely why the Government wish to allow call-out notices to be sent by email. The Minister has given us an excellent explanation of their rationale, and we on these Benches concur. There are, however, two points which I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify. The drafting of the amendment says:
“A notice under this section may also be served”.
This could be taken to mean “instead of” or “as well as”. My point is that it must mean “as well as”. I would not be comfortable with call-out notices being sent out only by email. What if the email ends up in a junk or spam folder, the recipient misses the email, or perhaps they do not even check their email—there are probably some here who do not do that? If the call-out notice is sent only by email, there exists a relatively high possibility that it might be missed. This could of course have some quite serious ramifications. I hope the Minister can confirm that call-out notices will continue to be sent by post as well as by email. If that is the case, I have no issue.
The second point relates to the first. New subsection (6A) specifies which email will be used to send a call-out notice, that being
“the last known email address used by that person as a means of communicating with them, or … an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person”.
What precisely does “used” mean in this context? Does it mean an address which the individual has provided to the MoD? Does it mean an address to which the MoD has previously sent communications? Does the department need evidence that the person has received or responded to communications at that address, and who makes a judgment that an email address is the last known one? Further, what are those reasonable grounds? Does this imply trying to send the email to a friend or relative, and if so, how will the third party be chosen? If this policy is to have the desired effect, information collection and recordkeeping must be paramount.
I understand that the Reserve Forces (Provision of Information by Persons Liable to be Recalled) Regulations 1997 expressly state that there is a legal obligation for those who are subject to recall to keep the MoD up to date with their residential or postal address. This seems essential. Those regulations do not currently require those liable to recall to keep the MoD updated about any changes to their email address. Obviously, that is because the legislation does not yet enable email addresses to be used for callout. Can the Minister confirm that, with this change to the process, the Government will update the 1997 regulations and any other relevant policies?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for their questions about this simple change. Of course, as with everything as we go through this Bill, I will look into all the various points that have been made.
My understanding with respect to email is that the amendment provides legal certainty by establishing that notices are deemed to have been delivered, mirroring—which is the wording—the existing approach used for the postal service. Many of the questions which the noble Earl has quite rightly asked about email and what happens in these circumstances are exactly the same sort of questions that can be asked about the postal service. There are established procedures and practices in place to deal with that. It is an important point. It mirrors the existing approach used for the postal service; it simply gives an alternative and modern way of doing it.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it is the sort of legal certainty that we are looking for, again mirroring the postal service, which would not be available with some of the other methods and channels of communication that might be used.
To go back to what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said, we need to communicate through a reliable and auditable channel so that we can follow it through and make sure that it has been delivered to whom it is intended for. Again, with respect to letters sent through the postal service, are we certain that this is the address for the person who we think lives there? Are we certain that they have got it? There is a trail by which we can follow that through. That is exactly the same process as will be followed with email. It provides us with the opportunity to modernise the current process and improve the speed and effectiveness of delivery. It provides us with a measured and proportionate approach. It introduces a well-established form of electronic communication while retaining the existing postal option where necessary—I make that point to the noble Earl.
As technology and communication methods continue to evolve, future Armed Forces Bills will provide opportunities to consider whether further changes are appropriate. For now, as far as the Government are concerned, email strikes the right balance between modernisation, legal clarity and ensuring that reservists can be reached quickly in support of defence readiness, mobilisation and national resilience. I again thank noble Lords for their contributions.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
Can I just confirm that we are talking about something in addition to, rather than instead of?
Lord Coaker
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting correction.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose the question that Clause 38 and Schedule 6 stand part of the Bill. These provisions would abolish the 13 reserve forces and cadets associations and the Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations and replace them with a single, new, national, non-departmental public body.
I recognise that the Sullivan review identified genuine weaknesses in the governance of the RFCAs, but the vast majority of those recommendations have already been rectified by the previous Government. What is proposed here is not a solution. Rather, I would suggest, it is more likely than not to exacerbate the remaining problems.
Furthermore, I am aware that this proposition has been in the works in the Ministry of Defence for quite some time. My noble friend Lady Goldie was made aware of these plans surfacing in 2020, during her tenure in the department, and she was always sceptical of the idea. She was particularly concerned about the voluntary ethos of the associations being usurped by the bureaucracy of a quango. Interestingly, the proposal did not feature in the Armed Forces Bill 2021, so there was nothing to object to at that time.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the purpose of opposing Clause 38 standing part. The PAC’s 43rd report of 2024-25 heavily criticised the MoD for inadequacies in its financial oversight of the RFCAs. The report said:
“The Department’s arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the RFCAs’ financial performance are inadequate”
and they
“fall below the standard we expect”.
I have studied this report. It is quite a shocker. The PAC even said that there was uncertainty over who was responsible when problems arise. I could go on, but I will spare officials their blushes. I hope they are preparing the progress reports that the PAC demanded, covering these shortfalls and failings.
The PAC specifically acknowledged that the Reserve Forces and cadets are increasingly important to UK defence, as is stressed in the SDR. But to take these shortcomings as specific reasons for changes, not just to financial control but to the management, structure and leadership of the RFCAs, is simply an overreaction. The drafters of this aspect of the Bill seem to ignore history or have little feeling for the long tradition of the Armed Forces’ loyalty and direct connection with the Crown—a tradition that goes back centuries, as mentioned, to Henry VIII and beyond. Such history is binding for the Armed Forces. It should never, even inadvertently, be disparaged or discarded.
Let us recall what Dr Sullivan’s review recommended. He sought to retain the regional volunteer networks, employer engagement and community links that make RFCAs so valuable, while strengthening the strategic direction, financial resilience and oversight. His broader message was to ensure that RFCAs remain a modern, effective and trusted partner for defence, while expanding their contribution to reserves, cadets, employers, veterans and the volunteer estate. What, then, are their particular strengths? I will me pick briefly on two.
First, the RFCAs’ unique voluntary nature, apart from their nil personnel cost, is the essence of the regional and collective support that they bring to the reserves and cadets. Their local, intimate knowledge of employers and of the attractions and enthusiasms of their locality are such a foundational success of the cadet concept that inspires young of different ages, sexes and backgrounds to join up and get involved. Their national coverage is a key defence requirement. All this should be valued and sustained, not badly revamped or even discarded.
There does not appear to be strong evidence of widespread problems in recruiting RFCA volunteers—particularly cadet force adult volunteers, where some regions have reported growth. The direct relationship between lords-lieutenant, personally chosen and appointed by the sovereign, and the cadets in their counties symbolises the expectation of the reserves’ and cadets’ loyalty to their monarch, who is their commander-in-chief. Why discard this without even consulting the lords-lieutenant or His Majesty the King? I subscribe to that old-fashioned notion: “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”
Are the identified MoD failures in financial supervision to be laid entirely at the feet of the RFCA structures? The National Audit Office, in commenting on the financial weaknesses, suggested that arrangements other than a full-blown NDPB would be acceptable. The MoD’s own internal record, following consideration of Dr Sullivan’s report, seemed to indicate that the NDPB approach had been overtaken by the SDR and the key efforts to enhance the reserves’ and cadets’ contribution to overall defence needs. I strongly recommend that the Minister takes this back to his department, checks that the present financial oversight has been improved following the PAC criticisms and gives credit where credit is due to the volunteer strengths of the present structures, as well as to the importance of the symbolic relationship with the lord-lieutenant and the reserves’ and cadets’ loyalty to the Crown.
The Bill is mistaken to degrade or throw away such key elements of a long-established volunteer structure. To throw it away in hasty pursuit of progress, modernisation, accountability and transparency—or any other overworked nostrum of management speak—is pure madness. Of course, the MoD should heed the PAC’s criticism of its lack of proper financial management and ensure that the MoD’s accounting officer has regained the financial oversight expected by the PAC, but the MoD’s financial failings are no reason to discard the tried-and-tested experience that makes the reserves and cadets, with their supporting volunteer associations, of increasing value to both defence and society at large.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and gallant Lord. I rise to support my noble friends and speak in opposition to Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.
I am always keen to champion improvements in governance. In the case of the Reserve Forces and cadets’ associations, there is a perfectly reasonable case, as highlighted by the National Audit Office, for bringing greater consistency, accountability and financial assurance to these organisations. My concern is that, in achieving that objective, Clause 38 risks losing something that is particularly valuable in Scotland: the strong regional relationship between defence and the communities it serves.
Scotland currently has two RFCAs: highland and lowland. As my noble friend Lord Minto said in his opening speech, they are not simply administrative offices of the Ministry of Defence; they are embedded in the communities in which they operate. They work with reservists, cadets, employers, schools, local authorities and civic organisations. The Lowland RFCA alone maintains more than 130 reserve and cadet centres across Scotland, and supports engagement with employers and communities across a very large, diverse geographical area. This local knowledge and connection was highlighted by Dr Sullivan’s report. He identified—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to this—the
“wide breadth of expertise and community links”
as key strengths of the RFCAs.
The Government’s proposal would replace these existing 13 regional associations with a single, UK-wide statutory body. Regional councils will be created, but they will be subordinate to the national body. Many of the important questions about their membership, functions and geographical responsibilities will be left to regulations of the new board. So my concern is not simply structural; it is about accountability and voice.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, let me start by saying that I agree with everything that has been said so far. I have put my name to some amendments in subsequent groupings that seek to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of Schedule 6, where I think the Government have got it badly wrong. I will seek to develop those arguments further when we come to those amendments.
Let me pose a question to the Minister. My understanding, like that of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is that this move is largely driven by a desire to centralise much stronger financial control. If such central financial control is necessary for financial efficiency and propriety, how on earth will the Government carry out their agenda of decentralisation more widely across the country? Since this is a Government who seek to promote devolution, decentralisation and much greater local control, how on earth can this particular part of the Armed Forces Bill be consonant with that policy? They simply cannot have it both ways. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds, could address that point.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and honour to follow the several noble Lords, including two noble and gallant Lords, who have already spoken; of course, they have tremendous expertise. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, because she made a point that is very important for the more general argument and not just about Scotland: the reserves are not a reserved matter. That says something about how it all operates and how local it is.
I have the honour, as a Sussex man, of being a member of the Sussex Club. We have an absolute rule that we have no speeches ever but, at our annual dinners twice a year, as well as the loyal toast, of course, we have two other toasts. One says, “Prosperity to the county of Sussex”. The other is to the forces of the Crown.
The link between those two toasts says it all. This is partly why we do not have speeches. This is what we are talking about here: this is why it matters, and why it is rooted. We must remember that the origins of all our armies, unlike the origins of the Royal Navy, are not as standing armies but as regiments raised. That is how the loyalty of the people has always been bound in. It is quite a serious historical, emotional and cultural matter.
However, we should not rest our argument only on that point, central though it is. It could be argued that for some reason, these arrangements are out of date. We would then need to think about whether they would be more efficiently done if they are centralised. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that centralised non-departmental bodies are a majorly difficult feature of modern British government. It is all to do with the problem of answerability. What comes into rhetoric a great deal in modern government is that we need “an independent body” to do something or other. That sounds lovely, because we all want independence, but what does that independence mean? It means a person with a bureaucratic background being appointed by bureaucrats. There is almost no answerability to the public more widely, or even to Parliament. Therefore, I would be suspicious of that.
Following on from what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, this is relevant now because the Government have inherited this measure from their officials, but it is not consonant with their own policies. The so-called “Manchesterism” from the Prime Minister is, in a way, a modern and more urban version of the thing we all are praising in relation to the reserves in the counties. It is the idea that local loyalty matters, that local people understand these questions better and that power should be devolved. This measure is going in absolutely the wrong direction.
This matters particularly because this Government are trying to shift all of that. Also, we must not forget the wider picture. We live in a dramatically more dangerous world than we have done for a very long time. The loyalty we are talking about needs to be constantly cultivated. People need to understand why their service matters. This will make it harder for them to understand, at a time when we want them to volunteer.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, thinks there is some intellectual coherence in the Government’s approach to regionalisation, given that in the last 24 hours, they have abandoned large swathes of it, including in my part of the world. However, I understand and take on board what he says.
I do not want to make a political point—having just made a political point. I strongly agree with the noble Lord in suspecting that this has the hands of officials all over it. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am not wholly convinced that this has his support. Of course, he will have to support it, as a government proposal, but I think he will get the arguments against it as well as anyone else would.
I am always nervous about any form of military reorganisation when it comes to recruitment. I bow to more distinguished military figures in this Chamber than I was, and it is very dangerous to speak about military experience, given how long ago, in my case, it was. However, I have witnessed over the years—and in the other place was a critic of—the move to change how we recruit our Armed Forces, not least through the use of Capita, which I always thought had disaster written all over it, in capitals. Indeed, that was a view shared at one point by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I am pleased that the Government are transitioning to the Armed Forces recruitment programme, which will come into force next year. We can only hope and pray that it will do us better service than did the Capita project.
But, of course, what we lost during all that was the whole issue of recruiting regiments from their localities, which has been enormously important over the years, not least because it engenders comradeship among those who join together from different parts of the world when they serve abroad. We have seen that throughout history. I agree that to try to centralise everything goes against the Government’s idea of localism. I can quite understand some officials sitting in the MoD on a quiet Friday afternoon thinking, “We must bring all this together. We cannot have all these independent organisations. It is much easier to have one”. But I think it would be a great mistake.
In an article in today’s Telegraph, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, Louise Sandher-Jones, talked about the mobilisation of some of the 95,000 retired people who have served in the Armed Forces for an exercise next year. I know they have raised the age at which veterans can be mobilised from 55 to 65—unfortunately, that excludes me by a year or two, although I hope I might have some use somewhere along the line if they are going to do that—but my point is that, if we are talking about a mass mobilisation, it goes back to the debate we had on an earlier clause about how to contact people. We are talking about contacting people who have not been in contact for decades. They live all over the country. What better way of connecting with those people and fostering some sense of purpose and community than by doing it through the existing structure?
The whole way that we do our military, to use rather bad English, is going through a transition, with much more concentration on our Reserve Forces and mobilising them in the case of an emergency. I therefore urge extreme caution to the Government, and to stop tinkering with this at the present time. Of course, the RFCAs are not above criticism—I understand a lot of improvements have already been made—but it is senseless, and the timing is wrong, to follow what the Government are proposing to place in their wake.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I begin by apologising to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I fear that what I am about to say may not be the most welcome contribution to this debate. I do not know half as much about this as the many noble and gallant Lords and other Members in the Chamber, but I do want to say this.
Last week, I went to an RAF base for an event—I declare an interest because my son-in-law is the station commander—and I was very struck by the extent to which it celebrated the local connection between the base and the community. There were representatives of local organisations and schools and others there, in addition to the lord-lieutenant, with whom I had a friendly word, and I got a sense of what lies behind the debate we are having today.
All I would say to my noble friend is that it is possible that we might lose something valuable by proceeding with this clause. But I am very grateful and interested to hear what he says in reply to this debate. I have an open mind, but I think that some valid points have been made.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I am chairman of the current Council of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friends for tabling these clause stand part notices. Since the Haldane reforms of the early-20th century, most recently renewed in the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to which my noble friend Lord Minto referred, many of the functions supporting the reserves and cadets have until now been provided by autonomous regional organisations known as the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. Thirteen in number, with a wide membership across the UK, they are made up of former reservists, regulars and cadets—employers, politicians and representatives of universities and local government—all of whom wish actively to support the reserves and cadets from the communities in the regions.
These 13 regional RFCAs are being abolished by the Bill. Each of these RFCAs is run by an executive, overseen by a board, which is elected by the members and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, wholly unremunerated. Each board holds the executive to account for delivering against service level agreements covering estate management, support to cadet units, and carrying out employer and community engagement on behalf of the reserves, cadets and, indeed, defence generally, including running the employer recognition scheme. The unremunerated board is to be done away with by the Bill. The county lords-lieutenant are appointed as the RFCAs’ presidents and vice-presidents. The Bill removes the involvement of the lords-lieutenant.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I too support this amendment. I took part in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in January 2020 when it appeared that the then Government were leaning towards adopting the recommendation that now appears from the Sullivan report. All the Back-Bench speakers on that occasion were against that course of action, with the possible exception of the Labour Front Bench, which did not commit itself one way or another. The only speaker who was cautiously in favour was the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who is normally a formidable advocate for the Government or any other cause. On this occasion, she acknowledged all the points that were made against the Government’s suggestion but nevertheless advanced some arguments in its favour. I wonder if her heart was really in it.
I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who we much respect, about the real advantages that will follow from this reorganisation—advantages which are supposed to compensate for the undoubted loss of the various links that have been so eloquently described around the Committee. In particular, I ask him to clarify whether there is any legal requirement to make this change. I suspect his notes will contain words such as “governance”, “accountability”, “assurance”, “transparency” and “public confidence”, but, stripping away the language, I need to be convinced that there is any actual legal requirement for a change of this sort.
I turn to the budget, which I think in the debate in 2020 was said to be £112 million. This is not a trivial sum, but when it is compared with the £333 billion-odd we spend on welfare and social security, it is. Is it felt that there has been some financial failure generally on the part of the organisations, apart from the changes which have been implemented from the Sullivan report? Is it considered better to have paid rather than volunteer participants in the organisation? How much will this increase expenditure? As has been said a number of times, how does this fit in with the devolution agenda? At the moment, although I do not in any way challenge the sincerity of the civil servants who have no doubt advised the Government that the change is for the better, I think the Committee needs persuading that the RFCAs’ unique characteristics are worth sacrificing on the altar of tidying up or centralisation.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I intend to speak to further amendments in this general area later today, and I do not wish to repeat the sensible arguments that noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have already made as far as this matter is concerned. However, it seems to me that, with this fundamental series of changes, we are taking a pretty large sledgehammer to crack a nut. That nut is the Sullivan report of 2019, which itself has been largely attended to and many of the changes already made—so the sledgehammer is being applied to the wrong nut.
My greatest concern is that if these measures were to be implemented, the local character of our reserve and cadet forces would be changed beyond recognition, and the volunteering ethos on which they currently depend would itself go. Many noble Lords will know that since Covid many of our volunteering organisations have struggled to recruit further volunteers. I believe we would be putting a stake through the heart of our reserve forces and cadets associations, and their local character and volunteering ethos, if these measures were to go through.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is one of those moments when it would be very easy to remain firmly in my seat. I declare my interest as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets), and I therefore find myself something of a piggy in the middle of this debate, working as I do for the Government in that role. I have sought advice about speaking in this debate, and I do so strictly in a personal capacity. I am slightly worried about the very binary nature of this debate, and I sense that there are things that could perhaps be done to reassure the House. I should also declare specifically that, if this non-departmental public body is created, I will be the Ministry of Defence representative on that body, albeit ex officio, unpaid and with no voting rights.
None the less, this is not a competition for who can be the greatest advocate for the RFCAs. I am certainly in among them, and they have done tremendous work for many years. We must, as the Sullivan, PAC and NAO reports say, do everything we can to maintain that goodness. It cannot be an attack on them. In many ways, I am frustrated that we are focusing on the organisation right now, at the most crucial time, as Article 3 becomes ever more important than homeland defence. Rather than focusing on what future role the RFCAs can play in the defence of our realm and, through their local links, in generating wider awareness in society as to how much more could be done and the vital role that they can play, we are instead getting ourselves wrapped around our handles slightly through a technical change in their approach.
I do not see this as simply wiping away the regional nature of the RFCAs. There are absolutely technical matters that need to be resolved over representation. I understand the calls for voting rights, which will be discussed later, and indeed whether or not members should be paid, and that can all be discussed in detail. However, I recognise that there are elements in the Bill that pose questions which have yet to be answered.
As piggy in the middle and, I hope, someone who can draw the House together, I fully recognise the need now to implement the SDR recommendations to increase the size of the reserves by 20% when financial conditions allow. When it comes to cadets, a key element that our RFCAs deliver but which none the less has not really been mentioned much in this debate is the vital role of continuing to expand the cadets. These are all things that I see RFCAs doing and continuing to be enabled to do in future at a regional level. However, we have to recognise that in successive reports there have been criticisms over governance, recommendations for legal change and challenges about the relationship between those two—criticisms as much of the Ministry of Defence as of the RFCAs, let us be clear about that—particularly when it comes to financial matters.
I think there is a strong argument, but what I have not heard in this debate is what the proposed suggestions are—if we do not go down the NDPB route—for strengthening that financial relationship. It is public money, at the end of the day. What are the suggestions for changing the legal relationship between the MoD and RFCAs? I have not heard alternative suggestions, but perhaps we can explore that in the future.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I thought I was going to rise from these Benches and be able to say, “I agree with all the noble and noble and gallant Lords who have spoken so far in this debate”, because there appeared to be uniformity across the Committee. We are used to that on defence matters. Last week, on the first day in Committee, there were discussions outside the Chamber, where some of the doorkeepers were saying, “We might have to get taxis this evening”, and I said, “Are you sure we’re not going to finish by 10 pm?” They looked at me and said, “Really? Do you think so?” But, of course, with something like military precision, we finished all our groups by 9.55 pm, and people kept saying afterwards, “Of course, it was military precision. What else did you expect?”
However, it was not military precision that meant that we dealt with business expeditiously on day one in Committee. It was that, by and large, the proposals and amendments that we were debating were areas where we were probing. Broadly, we were supportive of what His Majesty’s Government were proposing. As so often on defence matters, His Majesty’s Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches were supportive of what the Government were trying to do, but this evening we have stand part debates, on Clause 38 and Schedule 6, where the House is virtually united in suggesting that the Government really need to think again.
If I were speaking from the Back Benches, I would simply ask the Government: why? Why is Clause 38 needed? But as I am speaking from the Front Bench, I feel it appropriate to outline that, on these Benches, we very much share the concerns raised, particularly about losing the local connection. I have heard mutterings from behind me saying, “I agree with Lord de Mauley”, and concerns have certainly been raised across the Chamber. In particular, early on in the debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, rightly pointed out the importance of the reserves but also the local connection. There is the fact that the PAC had acknowledged that reserves and cadets are increasingly important for the defence of our realm, and that the SDR also highlighted this.
The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was really the only dissenting voice, and even he said he wanted to be a bridge. I think he was speaking as a non-affiliated Peer, but apparently from the Conservative Benches, so I am not quite sure. He is the only noble Lord so far who has suggested that Clause 38 may be the right way forward. But he reminded the House that the SDR talked about wanting to increase the number of reserves by 20%—when resources allow, in brackets.
Surely we should not wait until resources allow; we should work with the structures that we have, through the reserve forces and cadets associations, and think of ways to ensure that we strengthen and enhance local connection and local resilience. As a country, we have not yet engaged in the national conversation that the SDR said we needed. How better to do that than to work with local people and local Reserve Forces, and particularly the cadets? The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, rightly pointed out that we have not said much about the cadets. Surely that is an area where we need to think about strengthening—again, strengthening the local connection—and ensuring that we have a pipeline to recruitment, as well as resilience and a sense that we are beginning the national conversation.
I will conclude with a statement from Portsmouth City Council—not my local area; unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I have not talked about my area, partly because, as a Liverpudlian, I feel that the north-west is getting quite a lot of coverage thanks to the new Prime Minister. Portsmouth City Council, in line with its geographical position and the extent of its naval commitments, has a very strong commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and the South East Reserves Forces’ and Cadets’ Association, and it made an official contribution to the call for evidence in Committee in the other place. In particular, the council reminded us—as some noble Lords have done today—that this is not just about the individual RFCAs but about working with local employers. If we accept Clause 38, there is a real danger that we lose not just the history, which is important, but significant aspects of current practice that work well and that could and should be enhanced.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to make the case for Clause 38 in your Lordships’ Committee.
I want to clarify something for the noble Earl, Lord Minto: the service of notice for callout will be by both post and email. I meant that by my previous remark, but I realise I did not make it clear, for which I apologise to the noble Earl and the Committee—I thought I had said it, but clearly I did not; I found out through a variety of means that I had not done so.
I will start by saying something else. Lots of people have made a lot of important points. As everybody in this Committee knows, I will consider them and how we take them forward. I cannot walk on water on these things and persuade everybody that I can do everything, but I hope your Lordships know that I will try to do as much as I can to take account of the various important points that have been made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that it is not a legal requirement; it is the recommendation of various reports that the Government seek to implement.
As your Lordships know, I like to make some informal remarks before I make formal remarks. Before I make the formal remarks, let me say for the sake of clarity that nobody in this Committee doubts the importance of the reserves, the cadets and the organisation, and the work of the lord-lieutenants and charities involved. Many of your Lordships do far more than even I do as a Minister to support those local organisations —the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is one of the best examples. Nobody seeks to undermine that or do anything that would somehow not ensure that it could carry on.
I was with the noble Lord, Lord Elliott—he was in his place a moment ago—in Enniskillen just on Saturday. The RAF show there that I went to support, with the reserves, the lord-lieutenants and the cadets, was phenomenal. It was absolutely phenomenal to see the work going on there. Nobody seeks to undermine or hinder that. This Saturday coming, I am going to Grantham for the reserves passout that is taking place there, because of its significance and importance. It does not matter whether it is the reserves; it does not matter whether it is the cadets. Ministerially, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, no doubt; the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig, through their long and distinguished careers, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, through his, and many others—all of us have committed ourselves to pursue that purpose which is crucial to our nation. Whether it is Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England, it is crucial and fundamental to us that we do that. Each of the three reports which I will mention emphasise that. However, alongside that—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is right, and I will reference it, that the PAC did say either/or—each of those reports said the current framework needs to be revised and looked at.
My view of this is that the national body creates strategic oversight for a structure that would allow the regional councils to be stronger and more purposeful in what they are doing, with the financial oversight and clarity that a strategic body would give them. That is how devolution works. You do not just let the mayors of the country do exactly what they want. A national strategic framework policy is set which allows those local bodies and local government to function—and to function effectively. That is what this seeks to do.
Again, before I make the formal remarks, let me reference what is on the face of the Bill. Yes, it is the establishment of the new body, the new RFCA, but also—I have to put my glasses on; it slows the rhetoric—on page 136, and then on to page 137, the Bill puts into primary legislation regional councils and how those are set up. It states—I will just say this for the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser:
“The RFCA must establish a committee for each area of the United Kingdom as may be specified in regulations”.
That would include Scotland, Wales and all those things. That is laid out there. It then goes on to the various regulations that can be made. We will deal with the various amendments about membership, about whether people are paid or unpaid, and other matters, but all those things will be dealt with in regulations. I realise that the debate then becomes about whether it should be primary or secondary legislation, but it is on the face of the Bill that they will be dealt with by regulations. I will make my formal remarks. Those regulations are in draft form at the moment. I will share those draft regulations with Members of the Committee before Report. Noble Lords can look at them and decide whether they answer some of the points that they would make, so that we will not have a situation, which sometimes happens with Governments, where draft regulations are just presented and you either vote for them or not, without any ability for people to properly scrutinise them and agree them or not.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
Were the devolved nations assured of a seat on the national board?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Again, those are the sorts of things that will be sorted out in the regulations to which I referred. It is laid out in primary legislation that we will be able to ensure that the regions and nations of the country are represented and have the various functions the noble Baroness would want.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister—who, as we all know, has huge respect across this House—for his reply, with his customary passion and belief in the position he takes, and to all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee, even the non-affiliated ones, who have so strongly contributed, with great consideration. There are clearly very strongly held views, contained within a lot of understanding, whether from noble and gallant Lords or people with relationships with the forces, the cadets and the reservists, either directly or through family ties. It just goes to show how important this is and how it is absolutely right and proper that we have a clear understanding of exactly what is being proposed here.
I fear I remain unpersuaded—I am sure the Minister will not be surprised. He told us, in effect, that the new body will be designed to preserve the spirit of the membership and the voluntary ethos. I do not deny that, but it is a question of how that will be carried out. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s intention; what I doubt is that this spirit can survive the destruction of the structure that has, for over a century, created the conditions in which that spirit has been developed and flourished. There is no doubt that it has flourished, as anybody who has been to a county show or has seen recruiters out and about will know. The Minister has not told us how that ethos is to be guaranteed, rather than merely hoped for; nor, with respect, have the Government yet told this Committee what specific operational improvements to the cadet and Reserve Forces this reorganisation will deliver.
The Government seem to be more concerned with consistency and ensuring a clearer statutory footing. This is all bureaucratic language emanating from Whitehall and does not really reflect the wishes of those who are involved in these organisations. I remain of the view—I think that the tone in the Committee will probably support this view in the main—that I set out at the beginning of the group. This change serves the convenience of the centre rather more than it serves the volunteers, the cadets or the communities that the RFCAs have bound to our Armed Forces since before the first county associations were formed. I do not think that it is sufficient reason to abolish 13 historic, voluntary, county-based bodies and the links to the lieutenancy that they carry.
That is why I, along with my noble friend Lord De Mauley, oppose this reform. It is a solution in search of a problem. It is an attempt to fix something that is not broken and it destroys the very features of the voluntary spirit, the county identity and the link to the lieutenancy and the Crown that make the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations the valuable and universally respected organisations that they are. However, we are in Committee and I have made my point. I will reflect carefully on what the Minister has said, but I give notice that, absent a considerably fuller response from the Government on the questions that I have put, I intend to return to the matter on Report and, if necessary, to test the opinion of the House. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Harlech
“Employer policies on the employment of members of the reserve forces(1) An employer to which this section applies must prepare, maintain and publish a policy on the employment of members of the reserve forces.(2) The policy must make provision about—(a) time off for reserve forces training, including any entitlement under section 50A of the Employment Rights Act 1996;(b) the treatment of a period of permanent service under a call-out order or a recall order for the purposes of pay, pension, seniority and continuity of employment;(c) reinstatement under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985;(d) the post responsible for the operation of the policy;(e) how an employee may make a request, or raise a complaint, under it.(3) The employer must make the policy accessible to every employee and, where it maintains a website, publish it there.(4) The employer must review the policy at least once every three years.(5) This section applies to an employer that employed, on average, 50 or more persons in the United Kingdom during the preceding financial year.(6) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for the purposes of this section, which must include a model policy, and the employer must have regard to it.(7) The Secretary of State must, each calendar year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with this section.(8) A failure to comply with this section does not give rise to any liability in civil proceedings.(9) In this section “member of the reserve forces” has the meaning given by section 1 of RFA 1996.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require employers with 50 or more employees to publish and maintain a policy on the employment of reservists. It carries no sanction and no civil liability. It puts on a statutory basis an existing requirement of Silver and Gold employers under the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a new day in Committee, so I declare my interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve once again. In moving Amendment 40, I shall also speak to Amendments 41, 45, 69 and 70. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for adding their names in support of my amendments. Let me also preface my amendments by reiterating my intent behind all of them, as I did on the first day in Committee. They are all aimed at improving the lived experience of reservists in order to boost recruiting and retention and therefore to enhance the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
I begin by welcoming the Government’s Amendment 38, which allows call-out notices to be served by email. It is sensible and I support it. But it also illustrates the point behind this group. We are getting steadily better at calling reservists up, but we have said almost nothing about the civilian conditions that determine whether they are still serving and able to be serving reservists when we call. I think that there is common ground across your Lordships’ House on that objective. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has amendments for consideration later today that approach the same problem from a different direction.
The Select Committee on this Bill in the other place put the point plainly. It welcomed the changes to recall liability and then noted that the measures focus on the strategic reserve and do not in themselves achieve the strategic defence review’s ambition, which in my humble opinion is too modest anyway, of an increase of 20% to make a larger active reserve. That growth will be produced by the conditions in which people serve—and those conditions are set at the reservist’s desk on a Monday morning rather than in the drill hall.
Amendment 40 would therefore require employers with 50 or more employees to publish and maintain a policy of employment of reservists. There is no sanction. There is no civil liability. The Secretary of State supplies a model policy and, under Amendment 69, this would not commence for 12 months. This is already the required standard of silver and gold employers under the defence employer recognition scheme. The difficulty with a voluntary scheme is that it reaches the converted. The employers who need a policy have never heard of it. There are roughly 38,000 medium-sized businesses in this country and that is where a great many reservists work but where there is no human resources function to absorb the question when it arises.
A reservist in a firm with no policy negotiates from nothing. Every request for time away is a personal favour rather than an entitlement, granted or refused according to the temperament of whoever is in the chair—and when that person moves on, the answer changes. A written policy would end the line manager lottery. Subsection (2)(b) requires the policy to address what happens to pay, pension, seniority and continuity of employment during mobilisation. Most reservists have no idea what happens to any of those things, because nobody has ever written it down. That is a remarkable thing to discover at the point of deployment.
My main effort is Amendment 41, which is at the heart of this group. Most reservists fund their own training out of their annual leave. They spend their holiday entitlement on annual camp and have to spread the remainder among family commitments, personal holiday and the incidentals that real life throws in their path. That is the position we are in today and I do not think that it is defensible. This amendment would give 10 working days of unpaid leave a year for annual continuous training or for promotion courses. It would become applicable only after the employee had completed 26 weeks with the civilian employer. It requires 28 days’ written notice and a certificate from the commanding officer. It excludes employers with fewer than 10 employees, it confers no right to be paid and it counts against any contractual entitlement that the employer already offers.
Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already gives unpaid time off for public duties to magistrates, to local councillors, to school governors and to members of health bodies. Parliament has decided that sitting on a planning committee merits protected time off, but it has not yet decided that training for the defence of the realm does. I think that that is a very difficult proposition to explain to a reserve soldier. Ten days is already the gold standard under the defence employer recognition scheme, and the Civil Service has offered paid leave of this kind for well over a decade. It is a fair question why what the Government expect of themselves as an employer is too much to expect of anybody else.
Let us look at our Five Eyes counterparts. Australia’s Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 requires employers to release reservists for training—not just for mobilisation, but for training. Our own 1985 Act protects mobilisation only. The current gap is legislative, not cultural. Let me anticipate the objections, including those on my own Front Bench. The first is that this is a burden on employers. It is unpaid, it is capped at 10 days, it requires four weeks’ notice, it excludes the smallest firms and, under Amendment 70, it would not commence for a year. If that is an unacceptable burden, we should be honest and say that we are not really serious about the whole force.
The second objection is that an absolute right is too rigid and employers must be able to refuse. A refusable right is precisely the position that reservists have now and it is exactly why they use annual leave instead. The notice period and the annual cap are what protect the employer, and they are real protections. The third objection is that this is a day one right. It is not. It arises only after the reservist has completed 26 weeks of employment with the civilian employer—the same qualifying period that this House insisted on for unfair dismissal.
Let me turn to something that has happened since these amendments were tabled. Last Friday, the BBC and the Times reported that the Army has been instructed to halt non-essential training exercises and that collective training for United Kingdom-based units has been suspended for most of this year on budgetary grounds. The Army has not denied it. It says that it is prioritising the activity that contributes most directly to readiness. I understand why it would say that, but this bears directly on the amendments before your Lordships.
A reservist books their annual continuous training months ahead, clears it with their employer and, very often, pays for it out of their own annual leave. If the exercise is then cancelled, they do not get that leave back, and the employer who has released them draws their own conclusions about how seriously the department takes its own training. Every cancellation of that kind spends employer good will that took years to accumulate.
I therefore ask the Minister three things. First, will reserve collective training and the annual continuous training period fall within the scope of the current pause? Secondly, what has been cancelled or curtailed for the reserves so far this financial year? Thirdly, £4.7 billion of the £15 billion in the defence investment plan remains to be confirmed at the Budget on 28 October. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether reserve pay and training will be protected within that settlement, as well as undertaking to write to members of the Committee once the position is known. I put that in support of these amendments, rather than against the Government. If money is tight, the measures that cost the Exchequer nothing become more, not less, important; everything in this group is of that kind.
Amendment 45 is the mechanism that makes Amendment 40 matter. It would require the national procurement policy statement to address how contracting authorities take account of a supplier’s arrangements for employing reservists. These authorities must already have regard to that statement under the Procurement Act 2023, so this would create no new machinery and no new liability. There is one fact here that the Committee ought to have: the current statement disapplies the social value priority for the Ministry of Defence in relation to defence and security contracts. So the one department whose suppliers most obviously employ reservists is the department least required to weight it; I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how that came about.
Amendments 69 and 70 are consequential. They would provide the 12-month commencement period for the two duties.
The Bill asks reservists to be available later in life, at shorter notice and on lower thresholds. Attendance at annual continuous training is the single biggest determinant of a reserve unit’s readiness. Promotion courses generate the non-commissioned officers, without whom mobilisation at scale is not possible, whatever powers the Bill confers. These are modest amendments and would cost the Exchequer nothing. I beg to move.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, before we move on—because I suspect that this is not going to detain us too long—I would like to tease out from the Government Front Bench a couple of things.
As I said in my earlier remarks, we are going through something of a sea-change, rather too late in the day, in how we look at our reserves, our responsiveness and our state of alert in this country. In that respect, we understand that it is easier for larger companies to let people go for training because they have more people, but it is the smaller companies on which we should spend a little bit more time in thinking how we can better assist them. With that in mind, in both cases—those of larger and smaller companies—what are we doing to promote the idea that it is a good thing for them to release their employees to take part in some activities involving the military? Are we actively doing that?
Secondly, on people being released from other duties, it suddenly struck me that it seems rather ridiculous that people in the reserves are not exempt from jury service; I think I am right in that. This means that, particularly if you are a small employer, you might have to let somebody go for not only their reserve training but jury service. That takes a huge whack out of somebody’s time. However we monitor these things, it is almost impossible to ensure that, ultimately, people are not being penalised in their careers for taking time off. I would like to know what the Government are doing to monitor this on an ongoing basis in order to make sure that people who are actively involved in the reserves are not being penalised further down the line.
There seems to be something of a disconnect in our thinking here. On the one hand, as I said earlier, there is talk of mobilising many more veterans—something like 69,000—in an exercise next year, just at the same time as we are telling our Reserve Forces that they cannot have money for training and equipment. What is the Government’s thinking on that? If we are going to mobilise these people, is it going to be a paper exercise or are we actually going to invite them to turn up? Are they going to be given equipment? What is the current thinking here—or is it just a catchy headline?
We have debated the whole issue of preparedness in this country and will continue to do so going forward, for obvious reasons—of that I am absolutely sure. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned a number of issues, with which I concur. I am broadly supportive of many of the amendments that he has tabled and which we are debating this afternoon, some of which are probably probing. He talked about Australia and the difference in its approach to these matters, as compared to ours. We have lessons to learn from Australia, but why do we not also take into account what they have been doing so successfully in Switzerland for decades now, whereby almost anyone of working age and beyond is required to do service in the reserves at weekends? It is a very bonding exercise. You can be somebody’s boss in the week and that person can be your radio operator at the weekend. It engenders in a country a sense of purpose, unity and preparedness, which is what this must all be about.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I will make just a brief point. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned the training issues. I have raised these with the Minister and will come back to them.
In dealing with the employment issues, we have discussed people being released, but, having had the responsibility for fair employment matters, what about somebody being employed if an employer happens to know that that person is a reservist? The employer could say, “I don’t want to employ that man or woman because they will be a nuisance to me and I will have to let them go on release”; that would be one step before you get to the point of being an actual employee. The question is: is a person to be discriminated against on the basis of being a reservist by a future employer who happens to know that that person is a reservist, whether their picture appears in the local paper, through word of mouth or whatever? There is an issue there to be addressed.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we are going to come on to the issue of protections for employees in the next group.
At the moment, I wish to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Harlech on the need to have certainty for employers. I declare my interest as an employer in a small charity, Cerebral Palsy Scotland, and as the mother of a serving reservist. She is about to go on her captain’s course—tomorrow, I think—so she has been negotiating time off with her employer.
To me, this group of amendments goes to the heart of something that bothers me every time we talk about reservists and employers. The MoD always seems to look at this from its point of view. We get things such as the defence employer recognition scheme, demonstrating to us, “Look at all of these wonderful companies that have signed up”. That is fine if you are a silver or a gold large company, but there are not enough of them. The question asked by my noble friend Lord Swire about what we are doing to highlight the benefits of employing reservists to employers was well made; it is something that we do not do well enough.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
Yes, and the self-employed. That is because they do not have to ask for time off or negotiate with their bosses for training days. I would argue that not only does such uncertainty put people off being in and remaining in the reserves but it leads to the number of service days that active reservists can commit to. I was just trying to look it up, but I think I am right in saying that the number of service days that active reservists have served has decreased year on year. I think that measures such as this would improve that. Anything we can do to support employers to support our reservists would get my vote.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Harlech’s Amendments 40, 41 and 45, to which I have put my name.
In an era when the Secretary-General of NATO tells us that we could be at war within three to five years, while I hesitate to make life more difficult for employers, I think we have little option but to require those things which the amendments demand of them. This goes to the point made by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Fraser that we need to do better by employers too. As a quid pro quo, we should arrange matters so that reservist training adds more value in the civilian workplace, so that the time employers allow reservists for military training is used more efficiently.
Defence qualifications which produce skills that are significantly useful in the civilian workplace often have limited civilian recognition because no thought has been given to matching acquired skills to recognised civilian standards. Similarly, relevant civilian qualifications frequently do not transfer into the defence system, purely because no thought has been given to it, so time is wasted teaching people material they already know.
Too often, the Army assumes a baseline level of zero knowledge rather than assessing existing competence. Qualified civilian paramedics who become reservists with the intention of becoming combat medical technicians are required to complete entry-level medical technician training, which they have already done in their civilian workplaces, rather than focusing on the military application of the skills they already possess. A more intelligent approach that is pragmatic and less risk-averse is required.
Employers also need to know that reservists’ time is used well, yet the brutal truth is that a lot of training is done in a way that wastes time. Mandatory annual training consumes a disproportionate amount of the limited time available. For example, fire safety, manual handling, data protection, and similar packages are repeated every year, regardless of experience or previous completion. Rather than asking how reservists can fit into systems designed for the Regular Army, we should ask how these systems can be redesigned to maximise the value generated within the limited time that reservists—and their employers—are able to give.
Courses across the board are often shaped to fill a fortnight, rather than designed pragmatically around the time actually required to achieve competence, wasting significant amounts of the time reservists commit and creating an impression of pointless bureaucracy. This approach values conformity over efficiency. It is not helped by the fact that the system seems reluctant to open some training facilities out of hours, and to ask regular training staff to work late and at weekends, which is time reservists really need to be used to be more efficient.
Reserve training doctrine usually mirrors that of the Regular Army, with an expectation that trade training should encompass everything required to operate a capability before an individual is considered employable. Is this the right approach for the reserves? In many professions, individuals are taught the minimum required to operate safely before building competence and experience on the job. I am convinced that if employers considered that the time reservists gave up for military training was well used, and that much of the training and military experience was valuable in the workplace, they would be more comfortable employing reservists. At the same time, it would make being a reservist vastly more satisfying.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, bring together a range of important issues. Clearly, we need to think about the impact on employers of reserves going on their training.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham—who, sadly, cannot participate in Committee because she is now a Government Whip—spoke compellingly about the importance of reservists’ contribution in local government. She had seen the benefits of working with reservists and how that could contribute back into the workplace.
To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, there are ways in which we ought to be able to find synergies where the Armed Forces should look much more carefully at what skills the reserves are bringing to them, not simply having ticked off 10 days of repeat training. Perhaps there should be a day of repeat training and then working with the skills. Equally, there is a need to explain to employers the value of the training, because small and medium-sized enterprises might not be aware of the benefits that can accrue from employing reservists.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will be raised in the next group. These amendments would appear to be desirable, certainly from the perspective of those in the reserves—I hope, for both recruitment and retention —but also potentially beneficial to employers, for exactly the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, gave; that is, it is not simply a question of saying, “Please give us your time”, but one of giving clarity about the expectations. We almost need a template of what is required so that a small employer would be able to work out very quickly what was needed and individual reserves would not have to reinvent the wheel every time.
From these Benches, we support the amendments and hope that His Majesty’s Government might at least be able to listen. If they cannot accept the amendments as drafted, perhaps they might find a way of bringing amendments in lieu that would deal with some of these questions.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 40, 41 and 45, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lord De Mauley and Lady Penn. My noble friend Lord Harlech has long been a doughty and most effective champion of our Reserve Forces. These Benches share his conviction that the reserves are indispensable to our national defence and deserve every reasonable support we can muster.
However, I am afraid that I must express some reservations about the amendments in this group and in the next. This is a genuine and very difficult balancing act. On the one side sits our duty to reservists and to employers, who already, at times, go beyond the call in supporting them. On the other sits our duty to the small and medium-sized businesses that make up the overwhelming majority of Britain’s employers and that are, right now, facing a cumulative weight of obligation that these amendments risk compounding rather than ameliorating.
Some 5.5 million businesses operate in this country, over 99% of which are small or medium-sized enterprises. Firms of the kind caught by the 50-employee threshold —or the 10-employee threshold in Amendment 41—are frequently the very smallest operations; they might be a family firm, a local manufacturer or a handful of tradesmen incorporated together. For a business of 10 employees, losing one member of staff for 10 working days a year for training could produce real strain on its workforce, potentially pushing back deadlines and damaging its ability to compete for contracts against larger rivals that can afford such absences more easily. It could also—this is quite dangerous—influence the willingness of employees and fellow workers to be generous with their attitude towards service. That is very important.
This cannot be considered in isolation from the wider climate in which small businesses currently operate. Businesses have had to suffer two years of this Government that have made their lives considerably harder, with the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage under the Employment Rights Act. That is the context in which we judge these amendments. We are not saying that reservists do not deserve support—indeed, quite the opposite—but we believe that the existing defence employer recognition scheme, built on voluntary best practice among gold and silver employers, achieves much of what these clauses seek without imposing statutory duties that might deter smaller firms from hiring reservists at all, the very outcome we all wish to avoid. I hope my noble friend will reflect on these concerns in the spirit in which they are offered, and I look forward to continuing this conversation as the Bill progresses.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I should have declared an interest at the beginning: my son-in-law is currently mobilised as an active reservist. I apologise; I should have made that statement before.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and I have had a number of conversations, both inside and outside the Chamber. I thank him for bringing forward the amendments. I will write to him on the three questions he asked. For clarity, I will copy that to everyone who is currently in the Chamber and place a copy in the Library. I hope that is satisfactory for the noble Lord.
The noble Lord will know that the Armed Forces are not exempt from jury service. If a reservist is mobilised, they can apply for a deferral in the normal way.
We can all agree that the Reserve Forces are critical to defence, and every day reservists balance civilian careers, family commitments and military service, giving their time to train and remain ready to serve when called on. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I will of course consider all her various points; I always do that. I cannot answer them now to the satisfaction that everybody would wish, but I will consider them.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, made an important point: all the way through, there is a balancing act between trying to recognise the important demands that employers of all sizes have on their businesses and, at the same time, doing all we can to promote the reserves and reservists. We have to ensure that we meet both those demands and find a way that balances all that. I agree with the noble Earl. That is not in opposition to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has set out in his Amendments 40 and 41; rather, we have to ask what the correct balance is.
Defence relies on the commitment of our reservists. Their skills, experience and willingness to step forward in the service of the nation make them an indispensable part of our Armed Forces. We are deeply grateful for their dedication and for the support of their employers. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, recognised that in his comments. Of course we need to try to encourage more people to become reservists—and we will do that. I am not sure about the Swiss example; I am not an expert on Switzerland but it gets near to requiring people to do certain things. As the noble Lord will know, this Government and previous Governments have always taken the view that our reservists go through a voluntary route. We seek to encourage people to participate and to act in the service of their nation voluntarily. That is the right approach for us to continue with.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, let me start with the good. I am grateful for the support of my noble friends. My noble friends Lord Swire, Lord De Mauley and Lady Fraser all made very strong points. I am a bit disappointed by the rather gloomy view of my Front Bench of what reserve service offers to an employer. I will have to pick up this discussion outside the Chamber and try to persuade my noble friends otherwise. I cannot understand why the Government are not going for it. I am trying to generate mass for the reserve and to give them this.
I leave the Committee with this—of course, I will give way.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)
Since my noble friend is a bit gloomy, I would like to cheer him up slightly. The answer to the question, “What does the reserve service give to employers?” is, “Actually, quite a lot”. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, one of the things that defence is doing in a common skills framework is trying to ensure that, for the skills you learn in defence, both civilian qualifications will be recognised and the skills you get in defence can be transferred to civilian qualifications. Rather than having two parallel systems, there is an equal recognition so that there is mutual benefit for both employers and defence when it comes to training.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention and for setting out this equivalence of the defence skills passport, which is much needed and long overdue and will be incredibly helpful. We must get better at explaining to employers the value of employing reservists and why it is good that they go to train. They will maybe go to do a course in leadership and management. They will come back upskilled, happy and motivated, and they will spread their good will and new skills throughout the rest of the civilian employer.
I just leave the Committee with this: how can it be that our Five Eyes counterparts do what I am suggesting and more—much more in some cases—and we do not? Do we think that that is the right or wrong way around? It is to be continued. With that, I beg leave to withdraw—for now.
Lord Harlech
“Refusal of employment on grounds of membership of the reserve forces(1) It is unlawful to refuse a person employment because that person is, has been, or proposes to become a member of the reserve forces, or is or may become liable to be called out or recalled for service.(2) A person is refused employment if the prospective employer—(a) refuses or deliberately omits to entertain or process an application or enquiry,(b) causes the person to withdraw or cease to pursue an application,(c) refuses or deliberately omits to offer employment,(d) makes an offer on terms which no reasonable employer wishing to fill the post would offer, and which is not accepted, or(e) withdraws an offer, or causes the person not to accept it.(3) It is unlawful for an employment agency to refuse a person any of its services for a reason falling within subsection (1).(4) A person refused employment or services in contravention of this section may complain to an employment tribunal within six months of the conduct complained of, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable where it was not reasonably practicable to complain in time. (5) Where the tribunal finds the complaint well founded it must make a declaration to that effect, and may award compensation, including compensation for injury to feelings, of such amount as it considers just and equitable, and may recommend action to obviate or reduce the adverse effect of the conduct complained of.(6) Where the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of any other explanation, that this section was contravened, the tribunal must uphold the complaint unless the respondent shows that the conduct was in no sense whatsoever on a ground falling within subsection (1).(7) In this section “member of the reserve forces” has the meaning given by section 1 of RFA 1996 and “employment agency” has the meaning given by section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would make it unlawful to refuse a person employment because they are, or may become, a reservist, with a remedy in the employment tribunal. Existing protection is confined to dismissal, so a job applicant has none. The clause follows the model used for trade union membership in Part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, we have already started to discuss some of the themes here; the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised some of them. On Amendments 42 to 44, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for their support. The group addresses what I believe is the largest single gap in the law protecting reservists.
We protect the reservist who is already in the job, and almost nobody else. Section 17 of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 makes it a criminal offence to dismiss a reservist because of call-out liability. Section 48 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 removes the qualifying period for unfair dismissal where the reason is connected with reserve membership. Both are about dismissal. Neither touches a candidate sitting an interview. I add that where an employer is convicted under Section 17, compensation is capped by Section 18 at five weeks’ pay. That is the entire financial consequence of criminally dismissing a reservist.
Amendment 42 would make it unlawful to refuse a person employment because they have been or may become a reservist, with a remedy in the employment tribunal. Our closest ally covers this expressly. American law protects applicants as well as employees and reaches past, current and future military obligations. This House has already accepted the principle at home: Part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes it unlawful to refuse a person employment on the grounds of trade union membership. It is difficult to explain to a reservist why union membership merits statutory protection at the point of hiring and service to the Crown does not.
This matters because of what it causes. The reason reservists conceal their service from employers is the belief—frequently, a correct belief—that declaring it will cost them the job. That belief is entirely rational, because there is no remedy if they are right. The consequence is that the whole architecture of employer support rests on people hiding the very thing it exists to support. That is not a stable foundation for the whole force, and it is not a recruiting proposition either.
I expect to be told that there is no evidence of a problem. The absence of evidence is a function of the absence of a remedy. Nobody records a refusal that they have no means of challenging. I also expect to be told that subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, on the shifting burden of proof, is too onerous, but it is the standard provision used throughout discrimination law and well understood by tribunals, and it is narrower than the American test. Without it, the clause would be decorative, because no employer writes down that they declined a candidate over their reserve service.
Amendment 43 deals with what happens afterwards. Between the 1985 Act and unfair dismissal lies everything that actually occurs in practice: being passed over for promotion, taken off the client list, given the shift pattern which clashes with drill nights, or quietly moved sideways after a mobilisation. The employer who does not want reservists does not dismiss them. Dismissal is legally risky and commercially untidy. They simply make staying unattractive, and, at present, that is entirely lawful. American protection reaches promotion, retention and any benefit of employment. Ours reaches nothing until the individual is sacked.
This is settled machinery. It mirrors the detriment provisions already in Part V of the Employment Rights Act, which protects whistleblowers, health and safety representatives, and pension trustees. It falls hardest on those the reserve can least replace: the medical, legal, cyber and engineering specialists that the Regular Forces cannot recruit and could not afford to grow.
Amendment 44 concerns the reservists nobody has legislated for at all. A substantial proportion are self-employed, run small businesses or are partners in professional firms, and not one of the protections in the Bill or in existing law reaches them. For that person, the cost of annual camp is not leave; it is a fortnight of lost revenue with the overheads still running. Australia’s protections expressly reach partnerships, and its employer support payment scheme covers the self-employed. Canada operates something comparable. We pay the reservists a daily rate and give the employer a certificate. Again, to my own Front Bench, I suggest that this is very pro self-employed businesses and business owners.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause is deliberately a duty to review and not a spending power, so it creates no charge on public funds. I ask the Government to examine the question and report, not yet to fund the scheme. If the answer is that we cannot afford what Australia and Canada do, this House is entitled to be told the figure.
I recognise that these are not government amendments and that the Minister may have concerns about the drafting. If the principle is accepted, I am entirely content for the drafting to be the Government’s, and I would welcome a conversation with him and with colleagues from all sides of the House before Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Harlech in Amendments 42 and 43. He has again brought before the Committee sensible, pragmatic amendments that surely must be addressed if we want reservists to continue to play a growing role in our Armed Forces. Refusal of employment, denial of promotion or withdrawal on the grounds of reserve service must be unacceptable. We are relying on reservists to balance the demands of their military service and their employment, and we must be able to say to them that they will be properly protected if their service unfairly threatens their livelihoods.
The Minister said in response to the previous group that reservists already benefit from employment protections. These amendments identify two gaps in those protections that I cannot see a reason not to fill. The Minister may, as my noble friend has anticipated, find objections to the drafting or in other areas, but it would be interesting to hear whether the Government accept the principle that these gaps exist in the employment protections for reservists. We might also hear the challenge about providing employment protection on or prior to appointment, but I think my noble friend has found a very good precedent in trade union legislation, which has solved this issue in other cases. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, on this occasion I am going to split my remarks into separate comments, on Amendments 42 and 43. The principle has been very clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pointed out, that he has found a precedent in trade union legislation is very helpful. That people should somehow face detriment or constructive dismissal, but not direct dismissal, because of serving as a reservist is clearly something we, as a society, a Parliament and a Government, should try to avoid. If anything, we need to be finding ways to make it easier for people to be reservists, and easier for companies to understand the benefits of their being reservists.
I have some questions about the practicality of Amendment 44. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, “Well, our friends and colleagues in Canada and Australia do something similar.” But if the self-employed reservist is a plumber and somebody says, “I really need your services. I have an urgent problem: there is a flood”, and the reservist is deployed or doing training, they cannot say, “Well, I’ll come back in a few months’ time and deal with your overflowing drains.” I am slightly puzzled by what the proposed new clause on refusal of employment on the grounds of membership of the service means in stating that
“it is unlawful to subject a member of the reserve forces to a detriment”.
I am just not quite sure how that would work in practice.
Although I can see that it is desirable to find ways to make it easier for self-employed people to serve in the reserves, equally, there needs to be a way of ensuring that they can be replaced in their work function, or that they can find a replacement themselves. It is not the same as somebody working for an employer, as the employer would be expected to find a temporary stop-gap. That is what we would be looking for.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am again most grateful to my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for these amendments. As with my response to the last group, I completely share my noble friends’ desire to support the reserves wherever possible. I am absolutely not gloomy about the reserves at all; rather the opposite. I know that reserve training adds depth to any participant and, indeed, to any organisation that they might be part of. Unfortunately, I have concerns about these amendments. Between them, they would create new tribunal-enforceable duties on refusal of employment, extend protection against detriment short of dismissal, and place fresh obligations on businesses dealing with the self-employed and with partnerships. Taken together, that is a substantial new compliance burden to place on employers, many of them small businesses, at a time when they are already absorbing a great deal of regulatory change, as I have already established. I think it right to pause before adding further to that already pretty hefty burden.
Amendment 42 raises a further difficulty. It would make it unlawful to refuse employment to somebody who merely proposes to become a reservist. In practice, how is an employer to know that at the point of hiring? Unless a candidate volunteers information, there is no reliable way for an employer to be aware of an intention that exists only in someone’s plans, which makes the obligation very hard to comply with and harder still to enforce fairly. It is fundamentally my view that the commercial requirements of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, must be our primary consideration. I hope my noble friends will reflect on these practical concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I again thank everyone who has participated in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked if we can have a conversation before Report; of course we can. We understand the intention behind the amendments: to further build on the protections offered to our reservists in current primary legislation. However, the Government do not believe that the new clauses are proportionate; they risk creating unintended consequences for employers, reservists and the wider labour market.
As mentioned earlier, reservists already benefit from a range of statutory protections. They allow reservists to claim compensation where their military pay is lower than civilian earnings, subject to a cap, and provide support for reasonable additional costs arising from mobilisation, such as childcare or other domestic expenses. This recognises the significant commitment that reservists make in serving our Armed Forces. The Armed Forces covenant further ensures that service personnel are not disadvantaged by virtue of their military service. The Government’s approach is to foster a positive partnership between defence and employers, rather than to create new categories of employment litigation.
Membership of the Reserve Forces is a voluntary commitment that may involve specific and foreseeable periods of absence from employment due to training or mobilisations. The amendments could introduce broad new causes of action in employment tribunals. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, the provisions are drafted in particularly wide terms, extending not only to actual reservists but also to persons who propose to become a reservist or who may become liable for future service. That would inevitably create significant evidential difficulties for employers. In particular, recruitment decisions often involve a range of legitimate factors, and it may be challenging to later demonstrate conclusively that reserve service played no part in a decision.
These amendments may therefore have the unintended consequence of discouraging employers from discussing reserve commitments openly with applicants and employees. The Government’s objective is to encourage transparent and constructive dialogue between employers and reservists. A statutory requirement may undermine that objective and weaken the collaborative relationship that currently exists between defence and employers through, as I say, the Armed Forces covenant and the defence relationship management programme. We remain committed to supporting reservists and promoting reserve services among employers. However, the amendments would create a disproportionate and potentially burdensome new legal requirement and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into recruitment and employment without compelling evidence of necessity.
I turn to Amendment 44. The Government recognise that reservists who run their own businesses, work as contractors or practise in partnership can face particular challenges in balancing civilian livelihoods with military service—again, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made. Their commitment is highly valued, and defence will continue to support them through a combination of legislation, financial assistance, employer engagement and practical guidance.
Although the Government fully support the objective of ensuring that reservists are not treated unfairly because of their service, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary or proportionate. It would extend protections into a wide range of commercial contracts and partnership arrangements. Decisions about contracting, allocation of work or business partnerships are often based on legitimate commercial factors. The amendment could make such routine decisions vulnerable to legal challenge where current or potential reserve service is alleged to have played a role. That would represent a significant and far-reaching change to the law in this area, and the Government are not persuaded that the case for such a change has been made in the context of this Bill.
Existing protections and support mechanisms are already in place through various pieces of legislation. Financial assistance may also be available under Part VIII of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 when a reservist is mobilised or undertakes relevant reserve force activities. Support is available to reservists and employers, including self-employed employers and business partnerships. This can include provision for loss of earnings, replacement costs and additional business costs arising from mobilisation.
The Government’s approach is therefore to maintain a balanced framework; I think that starts to answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about trying to have a balanced framework and a balanced approach to some the competing demands. There is statutory protection where it is required, financial assistance where service creates identifiable costs, and strong engagement with employers and business through Defence Relationship Management. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about ensuring that everyone is aware of the skill reservists bring back to industry; that is an important point. There is also the Armed Forces covenant and the employer recognition scheme.
That partnership-based approach has built substantial and growing employer support for reservists without placing legal burdens on businesses. In 2016, under 1,000 businesses and organisations were signed up to the Armed Forces covenant. Today, we have over 15,200 organisations signed up. That is a significant thing that all of us across the Committee can be proud of, although there is still much more to be done.
The review requirement in the amendment is unnecessary. Defence already keeps reservist and employer support under regular consideration, including financial assistance arrangements for mobilisation and wider measures to improve reserve utilisation, readiness and employer support.
Again, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that the Government will continue to consider whether existing schemes remain appropriate, but we do not believe that a statutory review tied to overseas comparisons is the right mechanism. International models can help, but arrangements in Australia and Canada operate within different reserve structures, employment markets, legal frameworks and funding systems. For those reasons, although we understand the intent, and I am perfectly happy, as always, to have a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. With that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this balanced but brief debate. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s position. As with the previous group, I ask: are the number of reserves going up? Not really; we have stopped the bleed, so we have stabilised things, but the numbers are going down. If we keep doing the same thing we will get the same results. That is why what I am suggesting is a big change: it is dramatic, because it is time to do things dramatically differently to get out Reserve Forces where they need to be. For now, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord De Mauley
“(aa) the chairs of the regional councils;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for regional chairs to sit on the RFCA board.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 46, 47 and 49 in my name. To understand the importance of these amendments, one needs to appreciate the significance of the nationwide membership of the RFCAs. The 2019 Sullivan report on the RFCAs, which recommended conversion to an NDPB, itself provides an explanation at paragraph 2.2.2, where it says:
“A key strength of the RFCAs is their extensive volunteer membership (numbering around 8000), bringing with it a wide breadth of expertise and community links—without which the RFCAs would unlikely have access to the information and knowledge needed to discharge the duties … Their position as the link between Defence and the wider public, continuity of staff and expertise, and tri-Service drive enables the RFCAs to deliver across all functions, particularly community and employer engagement (the latter proven by the success on the Armed Force Covenant and Employer Recognition Scheme work strands). This is particularly valuable in cases where local knowledge and understanding may be limited in MoD customers”.
What is proposed in the Armed Forces Bill is the removal of all the regional chairs from the central board—the new decision-making arm of the RFCA. If the Armed Forces Bill proceeds as drafted, the members who currently elect those chairs will be completely disenfranchised, with the consequence of a loss of defence’s connection with society and the advocates and supporters of the reserves and cadets across the UK. The members have made it very clear that this will be sufficiently significant that it will lead to a reduction in the membership to a negligible number. Is that really what the Government want, when they state in the strategic defence review their ambitions to increase the size of the reverses, to increase the number of cadet and to create a completely new homeland and critical national infrastructure defence force, and that a whole-of-society approach to defence is essential?
In discussions with the MoD over the last 12 months, matters had developed to a point at which the MoD had agreed in writing, confirmed by a Government Minister at the RFCAs’ annual conference, that regional chairs would indeed sit as full members on the national board in order to protect the societal links and work done by the engaged and experience membership. Stepping back from that commitment, as the Bill does, is already being taken very badly by the membership.
I do not blame the Minister; I do not believe that the implications of what is proposed have been explained to him. They cannot have been, because if they had he would not be proceeding with this. This is about something more important even than the Permanent Secretary’s perception of how he will improve his oversight of what, in the context of the MoD’s overall budget, is a relatively small amount of funding that the RFCAs receive and use on maintenance of the volunteer estate. It is about the country’s ability to defend itself in time of war, because the effect of Section 38 and Schedule 6 will do irreparable damage to the Government’s ability to defend the country through the use and expansion of the Reserve Forces, of which the RFCAs are a demonstrable key enabler.
This will also have a damaging effect on the Government’s aim of growing the cadet forces, in which, again, local RFCAs are pivotal enablers. The Denny report, entitled The Impact and Value of School-Based Cadet Forces in the UK, identified that those with cadet service were statistically unlikely to be not in education, employment or training—something rather topical these days.
Turning to Amendment 49, I mentioned earlier what the Sullivan report says about a key strength of the RFCAs being their extensive volunteer membership. I will give a couple of examples of how the membership helps defence. My first example is that in the first decade of this century, the country was mobilising reservists in large numbers to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster the Regular Army. The Regular Forces live on the patch: there are welfare officers, commanding officers and RSMs’ wives—a whole machine that is wheeled in action to look after the welfare of the families left behind. For the reservists, who are scattered over the area from which their unit recruits, which can be several counties or several cities, there is no such welfare machine. That is when the RFCAs’ membership comes into action, visiting and offering help and advice.
Reservists have the added complication of a civilian employer. An RFCA member who is an employer can visit them and explain what is happening and the legal position. I commanded a reserve regiment during the mobilisation of large numbers of reservists for Operation TELIC between 2003 and 2005. Without the support and influence of the RFCA, particularly with employers, the reserves would have responded less effectively. It allowed me to command and lead while employment matters could be successfully dealt with by the RFCAs. I know that other commanding officers had similar experiences. It was the RFCA that led on the work relating to employment that was subsequently woven into the Future Reserves 2020 White Paper.
My second example is that, being apolitical, the RFCAs have been extremely helpful in defence, especially in the devolved Administrations. In Scotland, when the Government announced the expansion of the cadet forces in schools, one of the nationalist papers printed a story suggesting that this was about training child soldiers. Its apolitical position allowed the RFCA, through its members and connections, to persuade the Government in Scotland that that was not a fair representation. They agreed, and the story died.
The SDR proposed increases in the size of the reserves and the cadets; the creation of a new homeland defence force; that defence should become a whole-of-nation responsibility; and that resilience in the civilian community needs to be improved. Therefore, it seems quite extraordinary that the RFCA’s membership, which could do so much to enable these things, should be abolished for no good reason.
Further, as was said earlier, this is directly against the new Prime Minister’s drive on the devolution of power and influence outwards. Whereas the Reserve Forces Act 1996 included in its Schedule 4 detail on the grass-roots membership, this is completely and deliberately removed by Clause 4(2)(b) in Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Armed Forces Bill. There would henceforth be no reference at all to membership in primary legislation, for the first time since 1908. Thousands of volunteers across the UK would immediately be disfranchised and lost.
It has been suggested that the membership might be reinvented through secondary legislation; the Minister referred to this earlier. However, we all know that this is a poor way of doing it. It relegates the voluntary concept to a secondary level of importance and makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. I beg to move.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, set out so clearly and cogently. I do not intend to repeat them all, as I agree with everything he said, but I want to make a couple of wider points centred on the requirement for a regional approach to our reserves and cadets.
There has been wide acknowledgment of the benefits that such an approach would bring. However, a couple of things have not been mentioned to the extent that they should be. First, there is the matter of footprint. The Reserve Forces and cadets allow us a military footprint across the United Kingdom that is no longer possible with our sadly depleted regular forces. This matters. It means that defence and defence issues can be represented locally by people who are local; the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out one example of where this has been an inestimable benefit in Scotland. That is one very important point.
My other point concerns the matter of identity. Within military organisations, identity matters—identity of the group. In the regulars, it is perhaps identification with your ship, your regiment or your squadron but, as far as regulars are concerned, it is identity with your locality. That is fundamental to it, and that identity is fundamental to the effectiveness of any military organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, said that the Bill does not seek to destroy the regional aspect of the Reserve Forces. That may be true to an extent, but he knows as well as anyone here that the regional nature of the Reserve Forces is not just about the wiring diagram. It is about the authority that those regional forces have; that is absolutely fundamental.
In response to an earlier amendment, the Minister said that devolution is achieved through overarching strategic direction and that mayors cannot do what they like. Actually, though, that is the whole point: within certain limits, they can. The point of devolution is giving them authority along with responsibility. There is overarching strategic direction, although it will not necessarily work in the case of mayors because you could have a Conservative mayor and a Labour national Government; I am not quite sure how far the Conservative mayor would follow the national Government’s overarching strategic objectives, but we are not discussing that matter here today. So I accept that there is an overarching strategic directive, but it is strategic. It is not operational or tactical. Therefore, local authorities will have a great deal of freedom to decide things, but they will need the authority to carry through on those decisions. Authority goes along with funding in many instances, but with other things besides. That is one of the reasons why Schedule 6 is potentially so damaging for the Reserve Forces.
This speaks to what we would term “mission command” in military parlance. You give overall direction on the broad objectives that you want to see achieved, but you leave a great deal of freedom open to your subordinate organisation—in this case, the regional forces—to decide how it is to be done. Yet they must have authority along with that responsibility. If mission command is to operate effectively, at a superior level, you need to listen to your subordinates’ concerns when they tell you that something simply will not work so you must come up with a different plan. At the moment, as the legislation is framed, the link between the subordinate and superior formations will be, at best, neutered and, at worst, cut off completely.
Amendments 46 and 47 seek to ensure that the RFCAs are properly represented at a senior level and that their voices can be heard. However, that plays both ways. If their voices are not heard, they will lack authority at the local level. If they lack authority at the local level, it will have an impact on recruiting and retention, with lower morale and lower effectiveness. Nobody in this Chamber wants to see that, I know.
Equally, Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that the RFCA’s wider membership is enshrined in primary legislation and that its breadth and diversity are retained so that, again, the wider community and regional links are retained and have credibility across that regional community.
As I said earlier in Committee, I have concerns about Schedule 6 overall. If we are to retain it, I plead with the Minister to take these issues away and correct those bits of it that will restore the authority and the voice of the local Reserve Forces and cadets, in particular through the RFCAs.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to intervene very briefly in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I declare my interest as a former Defence Minister and as the Minister who was responsible for piloting the Reserve Forces Act 1996 through your Lordships’ House; I suspect that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is the only person present who might remember that, having directly witnessed it. I declare a further interest in that my wife, who is the lord-lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, is the president of the South East Reserves Forces’ and Cadets’ Association.
In mentioning my part in giving birth to the 1996 Act, I do not wish the Committee to suppose that I am opposed to changing it. I am not an old reactionary—at least, not in this regard—as I am the first to recognise that the world as it was in 1996 is not the world we are confronted with today. When it comes to the Government’s stated aim of placing greater emphasis on our Reserve Forces in creating a more lethal and integrated force model for defence, I am wholly in favour.
However, in acknowledging the deficiencies of the 1996 Act against that policy backdrop, we should not at the same time downplay its strengths. One of its major strengths, as other noble Lords have emphasised and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, so well described, is to acknowledge the importance of ensuring the buy-in of the civil community in the delivery of well-supported, well-motivated, administratively efficient reserves and cadet units.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, before my brief comments on this group of amendments, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his attendance at the most westerly constituency of the United Kingdom last weekend in County Fermanagh, when he visited the two-day RAF recruitment event just outside Enniskillen. It was very successful. We had a huge number of interested organisations and a number of interested young people who clearly want to be part of the defence forces in the years to come, particularly the RAF. I thank the Minister for that.
There are reasons to support these amendments, two of which we in Northern Ireland are very cognisant of, just as they are in Scotland and Wales: regionalism and localism. If you do not have local support and those who represent you, you do not feel part of it. That is a huge issue for the reserve forces and cadets associations, because these are people who may join or may at least have sympathy for our forces in the years and generations to come. It is about encouragement and ensuring that they have representation. It is important that that regionalisation and localisation is there for them. It is there for them, not just for us, and if they do not feel part of it, they will not participate fully in that process.
It comes down to a number of issues. The reserve forces and cadets associations are hugely important not just for the future of the services but for discipline, commitment, loyalty and colleague support. Those are excellent values to give to young people, which they can promote to their peers, friends and colleagues. This is not only about the amendments; it goes much wider. RFCAs offer huge organisational support for the community and individuals. I witness so many people who do not have that discipline or commitment to their families, or, indeed, their community, but it is instilled within the reserve forces and cadets associations.
I plead to the Minister and the Government to have a look at this. Maybe there are some tweaks and options to make this better, but please allow the people who are serving—reservists and those in the cadets associations—to feel part of things through that local support.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I do not propose to repeat what we said in an earlier debate in Committee, but I thank my noble friend Lord De Mauley for these amendments. I want to focus on Amendment 48 and the importance of volunteering.
The Sullivan report identified that a key strength of the RFCAs was their extensive volunteer membership. In every other part of our communities, we are doing everything we can to support volunteers and volunteering, and in times of tight financial straits especially, we seek to appreciate the knowledge of volunteers. I am afraid my heart sinks when I think of replacing the volunteers who represent the voice of our local regions, nations and communities. They bring experience and institutional memory, and they do it because they want to—and we are going to replace that with board appointments made on ministerial advice.
I am sure many colleagues in this House have experience of public appointments. I currently sit on two public bodies as a board member, to which I am appointed by one Scottish Minister and one Westminster Minister. We are subject to the whims of that department. In one case, DCMS has apparently decided that public appointments should serve for only one term. I leave it to you as to how that supports institutional memory and succession planning in our public bodies. At Creative Scotland, on whose board I sit, we are currently four or five board members short, and the public appointment process is so slow that we are not able to get to the front of the queue to fill those vacancies. So the idea that the wonderful volunteers we currently have supporting our reserve forces and cadets associations are going to be replaced by some sort of NDPB board appointments fills me with horror: we will end up with the usual suspects, rather than experienced and committed volunteers who are allowed to speak impartially, freely and frankly.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have pointed out, if we cannot remove Clause 38 and Schedule 6 then amending Clause 38 might at least ameliorate some of the issues. This would very much enable us to retain the local connections and, in particular, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, the importance of a wide footprint.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, about the situation in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about the situation in Scotland. Surely we should look for ways of ensuring that the voices of the nations and regions are all heard and not have a single centralised body that does not represent anybody. These amendments very much serve to ensure that the voices that we currently hear in the regional RFCAs can continue to play a role. In particular, Amendment 49 outlines key people who should be involved.
Will the Minister explain to the Committee whether he feels that Clause 38, as currently envisaged, and the idea of an NDPB really deal with the questions of representation? If not, and if he does not feel able to support the amendments as drafted, might he consider bringing back government amendments on these issues?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I have already argued at some length that I do not believe that the Government’s proposed alterations to the characters of the reserve forces and cadets associations is sound policy. Much like my noble friend Lord De Mauley and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, my preference, therefore, would be for those provisions to be removed from the Bill entirely. However, if that is not to happen then the second-best outcome would be for the various amendments suggested by my noble friend to be adopted, as a minimum.
Amendments 46 and 47, which my noble friend Lady Goldie has signed, would require the chairs of the currently constituted regional councils to sit as members of the new RFCA body. Amendment 49 would ensure that the wider membership of the RFCAs is not overlooked in the creation of the new body by requiring the regional councils to appoint members who are representatives of all the various organisations that work through the RFCAs.
Currently, the 13 chairs are entitled to a seat on the national board and those chairs are in turn elected by their membership. This structure ensures that the members of each RFCA are represented at the national level. However, as drafted, the Bill will remove that representation. This does not seem sound. The salutary story told by my noble friend Lord Howe of decline where local accountability is removed was poignantly salient, particularly since the Bill also provides for the establishment of regional councils. So the Government believe that there should be regional committees to help oversee and run the new body, but they do not believe that those regional councils should have any representation at the national level. This is surely a contradictory and indefensible position.
The Bill also fails to recognise the vital contribution of the voluntary membership of the RFCAs. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out, the Sullivan report itself highlighted the vitality of the voluntary membership to the organisation as a whole. However, this does not feature in the Government’s proposals. It is not as if the Government are blind to this: the strategic defence review proposed increasing the size of the reserves and the cadets and the creation of a new homeland defence force. That is not to forget the proposed move to a whole-of-society approach to defence readiness. At a time when the Government are claiming that they recognise the value of expanding the reserves and the cadets, it seems extraordinary that the RFCAs’ membership, which could do so much to assist the Government in their stated aims, should be abolished without replacement.
My noble friend has my full support in these amendments. If the Government are determined to press ahead with these negotiations then I hope that the Minister will seriously consider at least accepting these amendments before Report.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we do not accept any of the amendments before us as drafted. Am I going to speak to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the rest of the Committee about what we may do to take on board some of the comments that have been made around Clause 38? Of course we will have discussions about it and of course we will see whether there are changes or improvements that could be made that are acceptable to the Government and which seek to address some of the problems that the noble Lord and others have laid out. That is the commitment that I have always made.
I cannot promise what the outcome will be. This is Committee; it is not a full-on Report stage and it is not Second Reading or Third Reading. Committee is about challenging the Government on what they are doing and the Government responding by saying that they will consider how they may take things forward. Just to set the framework, this does not alter the fact that the Government believe that there should be a national strategic body and regional councils. I will say a little bit more about that as I carry on with my remarks, but do I believe that points are being made that are important for the Government to consider? Yes, I do. I cannot satisfy everybody’s demands that Clause 38 should not stand part of the Bill—that has been referred to in respect of Amendments 46, 47 and 49—but we will address all that.
I have an important comment to make to the noble Lord, Earl Howe, for the Committee to recognise. I do not see this as a debate between people who are young, thrusting and understand today’s society and what the noble Earl said—that he should not be seen as an old-fashioned reactionary. Of course he is not seen that way. He and his wife, who I think he said was the lord-lieutenant in Buckinghamshire, are doing great service and are important contributors to the fabric of our country. This is not a debate between those who are modern and those who are old-fashioned. This is a discussion between people who have at their hearts the understanding that lords-lieutenant, reserves and cadets all make a massively important contribution to our country. The discussion between us is about the most effective way of doing that.
I go back to the point that I made before: the Government’s view is that by establishing of a body that allows a strategic framework to be set and that deals with and responds to some of the criticisms that were made by the various reviews to which I referred earlier, we can establish an overall framework within which those regional councils can operate. The regional councils will be a matter for discussion, but they will retain local knowledge, local experience, local expertise, the local connection, the reserves, the cadets—all those points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for which I thank him, as well as those made by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig. Of course they are vital to our country. Nobody is seeking to abolish them. The debate between us is how we make things more effective. The Government’s view is that you have the overall strategic framework within which localism operates.
Again, there is disagreement here. It think that is perfectly compatible with the overall, overarching way in which the Government are seeking to devolve power within an overall strategic framework that allows people to make their own decisions and take their own steps forward. That is why the Bill—the primary legislation—requires that regional councils are not abolished but maintained and protected. What those regional councils should be, how they should be set up and on what area they should be based will be a matter for discussion. It will be a matter on which we will try to reach a consensus.
It goes on, on page 137, to list all the various regulations which I referred to earlier. The view of some in the Committee is that those regulations—membership of the national body and all the other things to which I have referred—should be in primary legislation. The Government’s view is that it should be done in secondary legislation. The commitment I have made to the Committee is that those regulations, which are already drafted, can be shared so that people can seek to understand whether some of the concerns—not all of them—they have about membership, et cetera, are addressed by them. It may be that they are not, but the Government are not going to go back. The draft regulations will not say we accept that Clause 38 should be abolished, but they may say we think the area should be this, the membership should be that, and this is the way forward for us. Giving draft regulations in good time to your Lordships’ House will enable a discussion to be had on Report which can take that forward and people will make their own mind up as to whether that is appropriate.
From the Government’s perspective, therefore, Amendments 46, 47 and 49 are not necessary, because the Government are seeking to deliver some of what those amendments are asking for in a different way. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in a very interesting, logical and emotional way, put forward the case for the regional chairs and for many of the established ways of working to continue, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and many others. The debate between us will not be about how we reach consensus, because there is a disagreement, but I have been asked whether, if Clause 38 and Schedule 6 are to remain part of the Bill, there is something we can do which may satisfy some of the concerns that your Lordships have expressed in a way which means that some of the old-fashioned reactionaries among us, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, can at least address some of the very important points, which are not old-fashioned or reactionary but are important considerations which any Government should make when they seek to make a significant change, to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is the commitment I make to your Lordships’ Committee and, with that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, not to press his amendments.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments. I thank the Minister for his response and for offering to meet and discuss these matters, to which of course I am open. I say to him that the way the Bill is drafted, there are to be regional councils but there are no members beneath them supporting them and they have no representation at national board level, so they are suspended in mid-air and it seems to me rather pointless. We are in Committee, so I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report, but for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:24 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 26 / Noes: 63 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 June be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
For Back-Bench contributions, the limit is three minutes. There is no gap and we are very tight for time, so if people stick within the three minutes, everybody will be grateful and we will be able to hear from the Minister later.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument extends to Northern Ireland only and is being brought through Westminster, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA. The Government note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, which raises concerns about the implementation of EU-derived plant health and seed legislation in Northern Ireland without public consultation and about the broader implications of the Windsor Framework.
This is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and plant health enforcement provisions, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of our Windsor Framework obligations. As noble Lords will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under Annex 2 to the framework continue to apply in Northern Ireland. These include the movement of goods, agri-food standards, and animal and plant health. It is important to note that this instrument makes no changes to the Windsor Framework. The instrument will amend existing Northern Ireland plant health legislation, introducing changes to six Northern Ireland statutory rules. The instrument will also update Northern Ireland legislation in line with EU legislative changes which are directly applicable in Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes update obsolete and outdated references in respect of Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states following the UK’s exit from the EU.
I will now outline the changes being made by this instrument. Three of the pieces of marketing legislation being amended are: first, the Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995; secondly, the Marketing of Ornamental Plant Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999; and thirdly, the Marketing of Fruit, Plant and Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. These set out conditions relating to plant varieties, documentation requirements, and plant health and quality for an array of fruit, vegetables and propagating materials. They protect buyers and growers by outlining compulsory standards for products.
Also being amended are the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which implement rules for marketing forest seeds, plants and cuttings, ensuring that material is from approved sustainable sources and is identifiable from seed to the final user, protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity traders and growers.
The fifth piece of legislation being amended is the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. As you will possibly be aware, seed potatoes are one of the notable good news stories resulting from the introduction of the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework permitted the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and their growing on, which had been prohibited during EU exit.
The final piece of domestic legislation for Northern Ireland that this instrument will amend is the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. This is a central piece in setting out the overarching rules and requirements for plant health. These amendments are primarily technical in nature to update references and terms that are related to Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU.
The amendments will also update domestic legislation to include EU biosecurity legislative changes that are already applicable and implemented, including some relating to disease control. A number of the pests and diseases covered in these technical updates pose similar risks to us here in Great Britain, and controls have already been introduced in legislation here. This instrument ensures that similar control measures to protect against these pests and diseases that are already in place in Northern Ireland will be fully enforceable.
The instrument moves beyond the existing ability of rejecting consignments and provides for full enforcement of non-compliance, including pursuing penalties and prosecution where necessary. While no formal public consultation was undertaken for the instrument, we have worked closely with stakeholders through webinars, publication of guidance, roundtables and the Horticultural Working Group as well as one-to-one meetings, particularly on the implementation of the Windsor Framework. From these ongoing stakeholder engagement mechanisms and the technical nature of this instrument, we determined that a consultation was not required.
In conclusion, I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in this instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework. The instrument does not impede Northern Ireland’s constitutional position or grant any additional powers to the European Union, nor does it introduce any additional impositions for stakeholders. So, by approving it, we reaffirm our solid commitment to protect our agrifood, forestry and horticultural sectors and deliver on our international obligations. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
As an amendment to the above motion, at end insert “but that this House regrets that the Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 implement provisions of EU law on part of the United Kingdom without public consultation; and do not help resolve the fundamental problems created by the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework”.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. Once again, we are debating regulations which may appear on the surface to be technical and limited in scope, but, as we know, such regulations raise issues of real constitutional and democratic significance and importance. No one here tonight is going to argue against high standards of plant health or biosecurity. Of course we need effective protection against pests and disease, and Northern Ireland farmers and growers deserve robust safeguards. The question is not whether we should have these high standards; it is who decides those standards and what they should be. In a democracy, the answer should be straightforward. The laws applying to citizens of the United Kingdom should be made by legislators people elect and can remove. Yet here we are passing regulations because, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, they are necessary to implement obligations arising under the Windsor Framework and to reflect EU legislation which continues to apply to Northern Ireland. Such legislation is not made here at Westminster, nor at Stormont by the Northern Ireland Assembly, yet UK businesses and UK citizens in Northern Ireland are required to obey it. Parliament is being asked to amend domestic law as a consequence of a regulatory regime imposed on part of the United Kingdom by the European Union.
These regulations permit the authorities to enforce laws. That is what these regulations give: the power of enforcement. They do not actually set the laws people are having to abide by in Northern Ireland. That has already been decided. It has been decided by the European Union and imposed on Northern Ireland. So tonight, whatever noble Lords’ views are on the merits of the issues before us in these regulations, we cannot debate those. That has already been decided. We are debating the enforcement mechanisms. That is the constitutional reality that Ministers and others continually try to avoid with words such as “technical”, “pragmatic” and “necessary”.
When you look at some of the wording of the regulations, you can see that these are not mere technical tidy-ups of wording, updating the statute book in some small way. I refer to some of the clauses in the regulations. New paragraph (4C) in the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 states:
“A reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union”.
New paragraph (1A) in the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 says that
“(a) any reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union
(b) any reference to the Union or Union territory”—
that is, European Union territory—
“is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland”.
These are hardly technical changes. They are not small matters. Instead of removing the regulatory border within our country, government policy amounts to managing that border by accommodating the EU rules that created the need for it in the first place. It is an acceptance and entrenchment of the problem, not a solution to the problem.
We hear much about protecting the Northern Ireland internal market, and we have heard it again tonight. In a genuine internal market, goods move freely from one part of the country to another without an international customs border—without the special schemes we have in Northern Ireland, with their crushing bureaucracy, enormous costs and compliance requirements that are having a chilling effect on companies doing business with Northern Ireland consumers and, in some cases, banning it altogether.
The problem with the way in which the Windsor Framework is discussed by the Government and others who support it is that each individual regulation is presented as some small technical measure. Each individual change is said to be limited in scope and not burdensome; but, taken together as part of the Windsor Framework in their totality, they amount to something constitutionally enormous: the subjection of Northern Ireland to laws made by an authority outside the United Kingdom and the creation of barriers to trade between one part of our country and another.
As the Minister has just tried to explain, the Government are not even bothering about public consultation any more. They say it is unnecessary. If legislation affecting England, Scotland or Wales were being amended because laws made by a foreign legislature continued automatically to apply in certain respects, would Ministers really regard consultation as an unnecessary formality? The absence of consultation is particularly striking because these regulations concern enforcement. The Government are not simply tidying up references in legislation. They are assuring that the requirements flowing from the EU regime can be effectively enforced in part of the United Kingdom. Surely that deserves proper scrutiny and engagement with those who will be affected in Northern Ireland. The absence of a full impact assessment is similarly concerning. A key assessment should be what the cumulative impact is of all these arrangements on trade within the United Kingdom.
The reality is that the Windsor Framework, of which this is part, fundamentally alters Northern Ireland’s constitutional position without the cross-community consent that has been the foundation of political stability in Northern Ireland for decades. It is simply nonsense to say that the only choices are the present arrangements or some kind of hard border on the island of Ireland. That has been comprehensively debunked and shown to be false. The Government need to be working towards fundamental solutions to the problem, rather than continuing to legislate to administer the consequences of the protocol and to entrench it even further. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for securing this debate and ensuring that we have three whole minutes to discuss the dismemberment of the United Kingdom.
I began by trying to find out what this was about by reading the Explanatory Memorandum. I want to make a complaint to those who write these things—if any of them are listening. It is completely opaque. It gives no indication of the actual consequences of what we are doing on real people and real lives, or on the constitution of this country. In future, I hope they write them more informatively.
Following from that, if we were to reject this statutory instrument, what would happen? Would it mean that European laws no longer applied in Northern Ireland? No, they would still apply. They would probably not be enforced by the British Government. I do not know what would happen. Perhaps the European Union would send in officials to do the enforcement for us. We should find out what the actual consequences are of passing or not passing this legislation before we decide whether it should go ahead.
Next, do these regulations actually fulfil the promises of the Windsor Framework, as it is so called? I looked up what the promises were. It was said, re plant health and so on:
“Instead of full EU certification, all plants and seeds will move under the existing UK-wide plant passport scheme, in line with traders throughout the UK”,
and:
“Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available from other parts of the UK while remaining prohibited in Ireland”.
Is that the case? Is it exactly the same as in the rest of the UK or not? The honourable Member in the other place, Sammy Wilson, said that he finds it difficult to get seed potatoes in Northern Ireland, that consignments above 2 kilograms have to go through complex procedures, and that lots of producers and suppliers no longer get them from GB. Is that or is that not the case? Will these regulations alter that in any way?
I share the disgust which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned at the inclusion in this document of statements that Northern Ireland is to be treated as part of the EU. What that is saying, in effect, is that the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is to be the same as between Donbass and Luhansk, and the rest of Ukraine. Legally, they are part of Ukraine, but the laws are made by Russia. Here, legally, Northern Ireland is part of—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Order. I ask the noble Lord to bring his comments to an end.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, it is already apparent that this SI is connected to a wider ideological political debate. We learn from the text of this statutory instrument—we will come back to the text later—that it has virtually no impact, it is already operative in Northern Ireland, and so on.
The Minister has said that seed potatoes are one area of great success for the Windsor Framework. I wish that Ministers would make more of those areas of success for the Windsor Framework because the most important thing that it does, for all its many defects, is that it returns to the fundamental negotiating point which led to the Good Friday agreement—that point being that the British Government were not committed in any way to developing an all-island economy, which they were committed to by some of the documents before the Windsor Framework was agreed with the European Union. That is the most important thing.
On the current expansion and growth of Northern Ireland, I have recently seen figures which suggest that the Greater Belfast region is doing better than the Greater Manchester region, heaven forfend. That is linked to the fact that the UK as an economy still operates fundamentally as a viable internal single market.
Having made that point, I just want to say one thing because the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has a point: there was no consultation on this document. Looking at the correspondence in and around our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it is very difficult to get a handle on it. You leave with the feeling that because this is small beer and does not affect many people in a significant way, officials do not put the work into it. We should not be coming to this House and saying, “No consultation”. We should be coming to this House to hear an explanation of what the consultation said, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has a point there.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, another week and yet another regret amendment in respect of the Windsor Framework, this one regarding plant health seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material. I ask the simple question: what does this achieve? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this is more about the constitutional debate in Northern Ireland. Who benefits from these repetitive debates in the House of Lords?
As someone who supports the Windsor Framework, and does not support the regret amendment, I say that we should be looking at areas of collaboration and co-operation with the wider business community on the benefits to be obtained from the Windsor Framework, and from the dual access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. That is what many businesses are saying to me and that is where the benefits lie. We must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a direct result of Brexit, which many of those who are opposed to the special arrangements for Northern Ireland supported. The bottom line is that we would have been better to remain within the EU. My personal hope is for that to come about over the next few years.
Obviously, this SI is to ensure that EU legislation governing plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating materials continues to operate effectively in Northern Ireland. It also includes full enforcement powers to ensure compliance with plant health requirements and biosecurity in Northern Ireland, and states that there is an ongoing programme of work to ensure that all regulations covered by the Windsor Framework are fully operable and enforceable in Northern Ireland. Obviously, this information should have been in the explanatory document, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate why this did not happen? She may not have that information to hand this evening so perhaps she could write to me.
Undoubtedly, the potato industry is significant to the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. I have family involved in it and they do not talk about the inability to get seed potatoes or the regulations that they face. Their main concern centres on the weather conditions as a result of climate change, because they face wet springs and autumns, which make planting and harvesting extremely difficult.
Undoubtedly, the Windsor Framework has presented administrative challenges. In conclusion, can my noble friend the Minister provide us, either tonight or in writing, with a copy in the Library, with an update on the full implementation of the report by my noble friend Lord Murphy, whose recommendations were accepted by the Government, and the ones from our committee as well? Can she also provide further details in relation to the SPS agreement?
Lord Redwood (Con)
This is no way to legislate for Northern Ireland. It is not right to annex part of our country to the European Union. At the time of the Windsor Framework, I and some colleagues in the Commons opposed it and pointed out that there were much easier ways of organising the trade and border arrangements between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Government should go back to that work and understand that we do not have here a system of handling Northern Ireland’s law and trade which meets the requirements of the loyalist community, and maybe others in Northern Ireland as well.
The Government should be ashamed of how undemocratic this process is. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has rightly identified, there is no point in consulting all the people who are to be affected by regulations in these areas in Northern Ireland because the Government cannot change them—and the Government cannot be bothered to work out the impact costs, or even the impact benefits, of the regulations because they rightly understand that they are a spectator. They are not in charge of any of these things.
Then we are told in the documents that there is going to be no review of how this works out. All the other examples that come to the Commons and the Lords from government for consideration go through a proper process. There is consultation with the people they are going to affect. Both Houses expect a proper assessment of costs and benefits. We expect a proper debate and if the Government have got it wrong, we expect them to go away and change or amend it. We certainly expect there to be a review after the process, so that we can see whether it has worked out in the way that the Government wanted.
The fact that none of these things can happen on any of these SIs means that we are going to spend a lot of time, on SI after SI, complaining about the process, so I have this suggestion for the Government. They have embarked on negotiations for something they call the EU reset. So far, all I have seen is a list of things that the EU wants, with the Government indicating that they would like to give those away in order to purchase some greater friendship or influence. It is always very odd that they think you get influence by giving in to what the other party wants. That is not the way most people negotiate.
Would it not be a good idea for the Government to put to the EU that this is doing damage to relations between communities in Northern Ireland and to the way in which they are governed; that it is undemocratic; and that we surely need a new settlement over how Northern Ireland legislation and trade are conducted? I very much recommend the mutual enforcement model, where we say that we will not send anything that is non-compliant from Northern Ireland to the EU and that we do not want to impose any new barriers on the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland border—indeed, that we would dismantle all barriers between GB and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to support my noble friend the Minister and oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds.
I respect and have heard many times—as has everybody else present, I think—the constitutional concerns that have been raised, but it is right that we focus on the practical reality facing farmers, growers and businesses in Northern Ireland on these occasions. It is probably worth reminding the House that, under the Northern Ireland protocol, there were difficulties with the movement of seed potatoes into Northern Ireland, and that the Windsor Framework was negotiated by the previous Government to attempt to resolve some of these difficulties.
I do not think that anybody would argue that we are in a perfect situation. There are issues and constitutional concerns, and there is a problem with concerns from the unionist community; that is absolutely understood and legitimate. What you do about that is an open question and something to which nobody, whatever noble Lords might imply in these sorts of debate, has a simple solution. Today’s measure is about allowing the movement of high-quality seed potatoes into a market, and it is necessary. The measure means that the appropriate agencies will have the powers they need to protect biosecurity—that is it. That is what this measure does, and that is why my noble friend is right to propose it to the House.
On consultation, it is my observation that Defra in particular needs no encouragement to consult on any issue at any given time, but this instrument does not introduce a new policy or new burdens. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said about this. Sometimes, for other reasons, there is a need to engage the community in a very visible way. Perhaps that is a point worth reflecting on for the future, but, in the narrow sense of what would ordinarily trigger a consultation, this would not meet that threshold. It is a decision not to consult; no one was forced not to consult.
By rejecting these regulations, we would not solve the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, or anybody else. This is an imperfect situation—we recognise that—but, tonight, for the benefit of businesses and growers in Northern Ireland, it is important that we pass these regulations to give the legal certainty and clarity that that important industry needs.
Finally, at a time when free trade faces growing threats from protectionism and geopolitical instability in many areas of the world, securing a stable and frictionless internal market here is more important now than ever.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are in the second of what will be three discussions of statutory instruments on the Windsor Framework before we go into the Recess. One of the advantages of this rapid sequence of debates is that we can check the consistency of what is said in one debate, as compared to another. With that in mind, I note that the Minister, when winding up last week, said:
“The noble Lord, Lord Frost, implied that the UK has ceded biosecurity responsibilities for Northern Ireland to the EU”.
She went on to say:
“We retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions”.—[Official Report, 2/9/26; col. 201.]
For a few reasons, I gently ask the Minister whether she entirely stands by that statement in the light of the discussion that we are having.
First, as we have heard, the Explanatory Memorandum says that the EU amendments, as they are called, are
“already operational in Northern Ireland”.
Further, in discussion on this, Defra told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, if necessary, DAERA—the Northern Ireland equivalent—
“could in practice have relied on the EU regulations as a basis for enforcement action”.
One wonders what the point of this SI is, given the powers that are already in place. It certainly feels rather irrelevant.
Secondly, in case this was not obvious enough, the Government are clear—as we have heard—that these amendments are required of us by the Windsor Framework. Again, the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The purpose of this Statutory Instrument is to ensure that relevant domestic legislation … operates in accordance with the Windsor Framework”.
In other words, that is the justification, not the substantive purpose.
Thirdly—again, as we have heard—if that were not enough, paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum washes its hands of it and says, “If you have concerns about any of this, go to Brussels and talk to them about it”. I wonder whether, when this great reset and the new SPS rules are in place, thus imposing this regime on the whole of the UK, that will also be the Government’s position; and whether farmers will be told to go to Brussels and beg if they do not like the new SPS reset arrangement. That seems the logical consequence of the position that is taken here.
It could not be clearer that the British Government have no say at all in these matters; today’s legislation makes that abundantly clear. So I ask the Minister: in what sense does she think the Government have autonomy in these areas? I suggest to her that today’s discussion is disconnected from the real power relationships in Northern Ireland and is entirely performative. Therefore, the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is entirely justified.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, this is another statutory instrument to update EU law enforcement on plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material so that it operates effectively in Northern Ireland. It therefore aligns the operation of Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector with EU laws. The measures do not take account of the geographical, climatic and agricultural conditions of Northern Ireland, which are different from those of mainland Europe. The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee concluded in its assessment of the SPS for GB that the
“full adoption of EU rules in this area would risk embedding regulatory decisions that are inappropriate for GB production systems”.
I ask the Minister: is it right that we should have statutory instruments to enforce regulatory decisions that may not suit the very different conditions in Northern Ireland?
Worse, the regulations violate the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and rupture our internal market. They mean divergent laws to govern the agri-food sectors under the Windsor Framework. That framework, as we know, accepted as permanent the EU’s power to regulate goods in Ireland, including the agri-food sector, whereas the settlement under the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement was recognised by the parties at the time as temporary, pending “best endeavours” to find a more lasting solution. As long as we have the current arrangements, Northern Ireland will thus be an economic vassal of Brussels, governed autocratically with laws made for the people but not by the people.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, given the time constraints, I will not reiterate some of the wider constitutional issues that have already been raised. But first I have a question: why is the SI even needed? By Defra’s own admission, the current regulations are fully complied with by everybody in the industry. That admission has been highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It does not even get a mention in the Explanatory Memorandum, no matter how opaque it is—indeed, it was criticised by the committee for its omission.
I want to concentrate in particular on consultation, or the lack thereof. It seems to be part of a wider pattern on these SIs, on which no consultation takes place. There are two conclusions that one can draw in relation to that. First, there is an approach that is both arrogant and ignorant. Indeed, one of the rationales given by the Government in the Explanatory Memorandum for a lack of consultation is that impacted stakeholders and businesses
“have had many opportunities to feed into the development of the EU regulations through various formal EU consultations”.
So the expectation is, if you are a small business, that you are supposed both to be aware of what is coming down the pipeline from the EU and to feed in and make your representations directly to the EU. The Government appear to be completely washing their hands of that.
We have seen that ignorance on previous occasions whenever, for example, legislation was put through on seed potatoes. I know one particular example of the impact of that where a business would have gone out of business because it was not able to source, even from another source. It took a considerable amount of work with the then Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland to find a technical solution to enable it to remain in business. That was because the legislation was simply imposed with an ignorance to the direct impact on the individual.
The second reason why consultation clearly has not taken place is because, effectively, this is a fait accompli. In many ways, it does not matter, on the substance of this, whether stakeholders would say, “Fair enough, we think this is perfectly fine”, or whether they would be utterly up in arms. In either case, the Government are in the position where they are simply allowing it to be imposed. It does not matter what reaction there is in a consultation, so why go through a consultation in the first place? That, I suggest, is no way to do laws in this country—to impose them on people. It suggests, whether it is with this Government with the reset or a future Government with a very different reset, that simply banking the current status quo and building on it is not acceptable. That is the wider lesson that we need to draw from this SI.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this interesting debate. It is the second time that I have intervened in what appears to be a series of debates on this issue. The last time I was guilty of a degree of naivety. It turned out that it was not a debate about tumble dryers; it was really a debate about Brexit and the Windsor Framework, just as today’s debate—although quite a few references have been made to plant health, seeds and potatoes—is really at heart a debate about where we are with Brexit and the associated Windsor Framework. Why are we here?
Given the time available, I want to make just three points about Brexit. First, it was sold on a false prospectus, of which “take back control” was one of the most egregious. It was a lie. We do not have control in an interconnected world to the extent we were told. Secondly, the terms of exit were negotiated, in my view, incompetently—not least of which was the failure to appreciate until too late the implications of a land border between the UK and the European Union. Thirdly, it is worth making the point that a majority of people in the United Kingdom now regard Brexit as a mistake. These are all thoughts that need to be borne in mind when undertaking this debate.
Finally, given the nature of this debate and why it is happening, it is relevant to point out that, in the Brexit referendum, a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland were against leaving the European Union. In fact, the majority in favour of staying in Europe was somewhat greater than the majority across the UK as a whole who wished to leave.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, noble Lords should be clear that these regulations, which allow the law in Northern Ireland to diverge from that of Great Britain, violate Article 1(2) of the Windsor Framework, which clearly states that the purpose of the Windsor Framework is to protect
“the essential State functions … of the United Kingdom”.
Surely the most basic function of the state is to ensure the nation’s security. A critical component of that is biosecurity. What the Government have not admitted is that this legislation applies different biosecurity standards to Northern Ireland and Great Britain because of the EU diktat, is set in the context of an SPS border dividing one part of the UK from another, and steps beyond the bounds of the Windsor Framework.
Last week, the noble Baroness sought to dismiss concerns of this kind by arguing that the island of Ireland has long been treated as a single area for epidemiology. This argument does not work, because there is a distinct difference between being treated as a single area for epidemiology in a context where we set our own common UK biosecurity standards and what happens now. Today, we are being divided in two by international SPS border control posts at Belfast, Larne, Warrenpoint and Foyle, supposedly to protect Northern Ireland from the threat from our own country—what a ridiculous thing to say. Those control posts have cost £152 million so far of taxpayers’ money to construct.
The truth is that although we have ceased being a member of the EU, we have still not left the EU. While the Windsor Framework is in existence, the United Kingdom will never experience a true departure from the European Union. This point is so eloquently demonstrated by the regulations, which, as mentioned by many noble Peers, state:
“A reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union”.
How dare His Majesty’s Government write out Northern Ireland from its own country and into the EU’s regulatory territory? They also refer to GB as a third country, which is also really outrageous. Even worse, any future changes that Brussels wants to bring in will simply be nodded through and business will have to comply or be sanctioned: changes to all things—passports, farm machinery et cetera—with no public consultation and not a single farmer, garden centre or grower asked for their view. How dare the Government again say that these are just technical changes?
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that we will keep having these SI regret debates because they are the only way that we in this Chamber get the chance to discuss the constitutional outrage of what is happening and the drip-by-drip moving Northern Ireland away from the rest of the United Kingdom. This is not going to go away. I will very much support the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, if he decides to go for a vote on this, to show, as a matter of principle, that we object to this kind of treatment.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for allowing us to have this short debate through his regret amendment. As I said in last week’s debate, the concerns about these regulations are much less about the substance of the regulations themselves and more about the democratic oversight, parliamentary scrutiny and very legitimate fears that Northern Ireland feels that it is being treated differently from the rest of the UK.
On the regulations themselves, can the Minister say what the Government’s assessment is of the impact on the sector, if any, of the eight-year gap between the introduction of the EU regulations in 2018 and these enforcement regulations we are debating this evening? Will she also say a little more about how “businesses and stakeholders” were able to
“feed into the development of the EU Regulations through various formal EU consultations”,
as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, and how the Government ensured that this happened in practice?
In last week’s debate, as well as this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, talked about the need to be pragmatic and practical. In general terms, I agree that the agricultural sector is looking for stability, biosecurity and mechanisms to protect our ecosystems from invasive pests and crop diseases. On these Benches, we recognise that aligning with the EU reduces barriers to trade. The reality of dynamic alignment, however, is that we are usually dealing with very small, technical changes which are probably truly understood only by a small group of experts—including the Minister, who follows these matters very closely. However, in the absence of formal representation in the European Union institutions, it is vital that this Parliament plays a full and proper scrutiny role, and I still firmly hope that the Government will set out a strategy in this regard.
Finally, it is deeply to be regretted that the House of Commons no longer has a European Scrutiny Committee. It previously played a vital role in carrying out necessary scrutiny of these regulations. This function is increasingly being carried out only by the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House and through regret amendments such as today’s. The Government need to bring forward proposals to improve this.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this secondary legislation before your Lordships’ House tonight. Once again, noble Lords and Baronesses from Northern Ireland and some of my noble friends have, in my opinion, made a very powerful, unanswerable case regarding the undemocratic way these regulations have been imposed in Northern Ireland without any input from Northern Ireland politicians or the United Kingdom Government. Of course, these regulations have already taken effect across the EU and add operational and enforcement measures. However, like other noble Lords, I have questions and concerns about the process.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, whose amendment formally regrets that these regulations were made “without public consultation”. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government have “engaged with key stakeholders” to notify them of “the main changes”, but that is not the same as consultation, so will the Minister provide more detail on how the department and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, DAERA, select stakeholders to engage with and ensure that those impacted are aware of the changes? What exactly was the scope and scale of this engagement? Furthermore, while the Government have said that businesses and stakeholders can participate in formal EU consultations, how do the Government ensure that businesses and stakeholders are aware of these EU consultations? What assessment have the Government made of current participation levels and do they think that EU consultations are adequate in acting on concerns raised? We should not be complacent but proactive in ensuring that the needs and concerns of businesses and key stakeholders in Northern Ireland are heard and acted upon.
The Windsor Framework itself, despite its inherent flaws, is a great improvement on the awful Northern Ireland protocol negotiated in October 2019. That is not to say that it is perfect, nor was it ever our view that the Windsor Framework is beyond improvement. As the Official Opposition, we remain open to constructive discussions with all interested parties on how we can best protect the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his amendment and his valuable insights tonight. As noble Lords have said, while individually these SIs are small, technical and not significant, collectively, slowly and surely, they give the impression that Northern Ireland is being leveraged out of the United Kingdom. That situation is not sustainable and, sooner rather than later, it needs to be addressed by this Parliament. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate today and for the valuable points made in respect of the instrument. I will rattle through—I do not have very long, I am afraid—because a broad range of issues has been covered during the debate, some clearly beyond the scope of the instrument but important none the less. I will do my best to cover the issues raised in the time I have.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, talked about Northern Ireland’s status, as did other noble Lords. This is a technical amendment. I get the point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just made, but this is not about making Northern Ireland a member state or changing Northern Ireland’s status; it is about protecting the unique opportunity that we have secured for Northern Ireland. What we have done is ensure that Northern Ireland operators maintain seamless access to the EU single market while at the same time firmly remaining within the UK’s internal market.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the constitution and the Windsor Framework. As I said at the beginning, this does not change the Windsor Framework. I appreciate the strength of feeling around constitutional issues, but I assure noble Lords that this instrument respects Northern Ireland’s position and integral place within the United Kingdom. It is UK-made, UK-scrutinised and operates within the scope of the UK’s international commitments. Introducing and applying domestic legislation to Northern Ireland upholds the UK Government’s commitment to implementing the Windsor Framework, which, as we have heard, is a clear improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol and is the best workable solution we have.
Some noble Lords suggested, or at least implied, that the United Kingdom is being governed by the European Union. This is not the case. Northern Ireland, as I said, is fully part of the UK internal market. It has unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to GB, and EU law applies only in limited, defined areas necessary to preserve island of Ireland biosecurity and Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. The framework enables Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access, supporting its agri-food sector and its rural economy. There are no constitutional changes made by this instrument; it simply provides for full enforcement of biosecurity controls at domestic level.
Some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for example—talked about enforcement. DAERA and GB competent authorities work closely to achieve compliance with biosecurity controls and minimise any disruption or delay on trade. However, DAERA must also be able to ensure it has adequate means of taking appropriate action on the small number of operators that may not comply with plant health requirements, in order to ensure a level playing field for those following the rules. The amendments included in this instrument will ensure that DAERA has the powers to maintain a legal regime that can be effectively enforced, so that penalties can be imposed for non-compliance that puts Northern Ireland’s biosecurity at risk. However, it is DAERA’s intention to maintain a proportionate approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned the positive impacts of the Windsor Framework. I mentioned seed potatoes in my speech, but I would like to give another example. Goods moved under the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme, which was introduced as part of the Windsor Framework, increased from 1,708 in 2024 to 4,090 in 2025. This is extremely positive and clearly demonstrates that goods are moving across the United Kingdom and that the flow of trade is good.
I was asked why there was not an impact assessment. A full impact assessment was not prepared as it is not required under the Better Regulation Framework, and this will not impact on businesses and stakeholders; in fact it provides DAERA with more effective enforcement against non-compliant operators. There was a lot of discussion around the lack of public consultation. The main reason is that there is no statutory duty to consult, because this makes consequential changes relating to plant health legislation that already applies in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework.
I have talked about the engagement with stakeholders leading to the development of the instrument. I mentioned the UK horticultural working group. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said that we had not spoken to any farmers, but that group includes the UFU—the Ulster Farmers Union—and the Horticultural Trades Association. I would also like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we talked to the EU during our discussions about Northern Ireland and the concerns that are raised and the particular ways in which we have to manage Northern Ireland trade. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, may be interested to know that I met a number of farmers today who are very supportive of our SPS negotiations because they see the benefits to trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, talked about the necessity of the SI at opposite ends of the scales. The legislation gives DAERA the necessary powers. That is why we need it: we need to protect Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and high plant health status. My noble friend Baroness Ritchie asked about the Murphy report. The Government accepted all the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, in his independent review of the Windsor Framework. Among other measures, we will sharpen and improve our engagement with a range of stakeholders across different sectors and businesses that implement the Windsor Framework. We will also continue our work to smooth the flow of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland, including the future SPS agreement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned divergence, and I completely appreciate her points in respect of regulatory divergence, and concerns that this could complicate trade. However, the Government’s view is that the Windsor Framework promotes a careful and pragmatic balance between maintaining Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market and safeguarding its place within the UK internal market. It reduces unnecessary checks on goods, which is why many businesses support this approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, may be interested to know that DAERA officials in Northern Ireland actually drafted the legislation, and have worked to ensure that the instrument is drafted with what is necessary and proportionate for Northern Ireland at its core. That approach reflects the fact that the Windsor Framework obligations arise from an agreement reached by the UK Government and ultimately fall to the UK Government to uphold. It is not appropriate to leave them solely to the Northern Ireland Executive to discharge, which is why we work on direction and control with DAERA.
I return to the specifics of the statutory instrument at hand today. It serves only to update Northern Ireland’s plant health legislation, ensuring that it is clear, operable and accurate. This gives not only clarity to DAERA in the vital roles it delivers in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity, but clarity and stability to Northern Ireland’s stakeholders, ensuring that all parties play their part in doing what is necessary to maintain plant health in Northern Ireland. Making the requirements clear and correct in this instrument will ensure that there are no legislative gaps and no room for confusion in dealing with a complex plant health environment. It thus contributes to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s trade and economic success in the agri-food, horticulture, forestry and woodland sectors. It also, as I have said, ensures that the United Kingdom meets its international obligations under the Windsor Framework, serving to ensure that the high biosecurity standards that Northern Ireland is privileged to observe are continued.
I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, time to respond, so I will finish there. I will write on the details of the consultation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, because there is quite a lot there.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate, especially those who have indicated support for my regret amendment. One noble Baroness questioned what is achieved by these debates and who benefits. Well, I suppose when the Government do not bother about a consultation or an impact assessment, the next logical step is to forget about parliamentary debate as well—why bother having any of this?
The purpose of these debates is to bring scrutiny to legislation which would otherwise pass without any examination, made by a foreign political body for the citizens of the UK. That is why it is important—that is why these debates are significant. When people ask why we are not dealing with the practicalities instead of the constitutionalities, the fact is that the practicalities are decided not here, but elsewhere. We cannot debate tumble dryers, as the noble Lord mentioned, or these other issues, because the policy and the legislation are not decided here. We are debating enforcement and other peripheral matters; the substance is being decided elsewhere.
The Minister said that this respects Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. How does a regulation which states in terms that any reference to the European Union or union territory is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland? That is in black and white in these regulations. That is a scandalous proposition for any Government to put in legislation before this House, and for that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House and to seek where people stand on issues of such importance.
Armed Forces Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure non executive board members remain unpaid and therefore genuinely committed to the reserves and cadets.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 50, 51 and 52 in my name.
Amendment 48 is about payment to the new non-executive board members. The members of the RFCAs and all their forebear organisations, commencing with the county territorial associations in 1908, whether acting locally or nationally, have never been paid. The volunteer ethos is of very considerable significance, especially in the world of reserves and cadets. Imagine how it will look to the reservists, who volunteer and put their lives on the line, and to the cadet forces, if the non-executives are to be paid. It is a really bad look and unlikely to attract the best of society who are absolutely committed to the reserves and cadets.
Furthermore, we are living in a time of scarce resources, especially in the field of defence. Yet here is the MoD deliberately adding cost, when it knows there is a ready supply of volunteers who will do, and indeed are doing, this work for no financial reward. One can guess the reaction of those who have shown, over many years, their dedicated and unpaid commitment to the reserves and cadets, to the appointment of paid non-executives with no apparent commitment to the reserves or cadets. It is a mistake to offer money to entice people to apply for these roles.
I turn now to Amendment 50, which seeks to reinstate lords-lieutenant. Lords-lieutenant are the sovereign’s representatives in their respective lieutenancies or counties. It is their foremost duty to uphold the dignity of the Crown. Historically, each lord-lieutenant was responsible for organising the county’s militia. The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 established county territorial associations, with the lord-lieutenant as the president of the county association. The relationship of lords-lieutenant with the military today is maintained via their presidency of their county RFCAs. All lords-lieutenant are affiliated to one of the 13 regional RFCAs; one of them is president and they rotate the presidency among them.
This is constituted in primary legislation, most recently in Schedule 4 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Removing that would remove the final vestiges of a military role and an important part of the symbolic relationship of the lords-lieutenant to the Crown. Service personnel hold the sovereign in the highest regard. To cut off this link between reservists and the Crown seems, to say the least, inappropriate. Lords-lieutenant have evidenced considerable concern over the review’s proposals and the consequences of breaking this important link. Under the Armed Forces Bill, the involvement of the lords-lieutenant, which was established under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 4 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996, is to be abolished. Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 6 to this Bill will omit
“section 111 and Schedule 4 (provisions of schemes for the constitution of associations)”.
It has been suggested, as an afterthought, that the continued involvement of the lords-lieutenant might be achieved through secondary legislation or regulation. The involvement of the lords-lieutenant is currently in primary legislation and to relegate it to regulations is nothing short of insulting. It also makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. If it is proposed to amend the law in a way that affects a class of persons, it is customary to consult them. Even if there is no statutory duty to do so, there have been cases where the courts have held that failure to consult is a reason for upholding judicial review of the Government. I understand that the Association of Lord-Lieutenants has not been consulted. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully.
Amendment 51 addresses the establishment of a national council. The strength of the RFCAs lies in their embeddedness across the regions. This was not accidental; it reflects the original Haldane model from 1908—a decentralised, citizen-based structure designed to mirror national diversity and ensure societal ownership of the territorial Reserve Forces. It has endured and worked for over a century. What is today described as “connecting defence with the nation” is rooted in this model, so it is right that Schedule 6 of the Bill establishes regional councils through paragraph 14 of proposed new Schedule 4A. What is extremely odd, though, is that the drafters have not understood that the regional councils are irrelevant if their views are not brought together and debated centrally, so that a single considered professional message can be delivered to Ministers.
Abolition of the membership, discussed in the debate on the last group, also presents a conundrum as to where the regional council members will be elected from. When we questioned this, we were told, “Don’t worry, it’ll be dealt with in secondary legislation”. This is a quite extraordinary response. Without a national council, the regional councils are completely irrelevant, and without a membership they will be ineffective. This seems to be an attempt to pay lip service to devolution, while in fact cutting it off at the roots. A national council is fundamental to the functioning of the new structure, and the amendment would establish one.
Amendment 52 addresses the external scrutiny team. The Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations external scrutiny team provides an independent annual assessment to Parliament of the state, capabilities and health of the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces, identified as fundamental to advising Ministers and the single services on the effectiveness of training, fighting efficiency and leadership of the reserve, thus meeting the FR 2020 proposition to reservists. It was established following the Future Reserves 2020 review and operates with statutory duties mandated by the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
The Armed Forces Bill, in paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 6, introduces the concept that the Defence Council can remove responsibility for producing the annual assessment or report and award it to someone else at stroke of a pen. This is not the case in the current legislation. Will the Minister therefore explain what lies behind this change? To whom might the responsibility for producing the independent assessment be transferred? What would be considered appropriate grounds for transferring it? When might this happen? How will Ministers ensure the assessment continues in future to be conducted properly and truly independently of the MoD? I beg to move.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to these amendments, and I agree with the points that have been so well made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I will start my brief remarks by making just a couple of general points. First, while there have been some criticisms of the arrangements of reserves and cadet forces, particularly in fairly recent reviews, most of these have been attended to subsequently. The general opinion was that, in the round, the Reserve Forces and cadets operated extremely well and were extremely valuable, and the arrangements that had been set in place had served this country extremely well for a very long time. There is, therefore, a burden of proof on anyone seeking to change the current arrangements to show why any proposed alterations will be better than the arrangements that are already in place. I fear that the Government fail on this count in many instances in this particular part of the Armed Forces Bill.
Secondly, the Minister has previously indicated to the Committee that some of the shortcomings might be attended to in secondary legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, just referred to this. That is all very well, but as everybody in this Chamber knows, we cannot amend secondary legislation; we take it or leave it, and usually, we have to take it. Of course, there must be secondary legislation for the detailed implementation of an Act and the measures in it; but issues of principle should be settled in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation, for some of the reasons that the Lord, Lord De Mauley, just pointed out. Quite a number of the issues covered by the amendments this evening are issues of principle and, therefore, belong in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, again, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, and in particular to reinforce everything he said about Amendments 50 and 51. On Amendment 51, I will say no more than that it plays into the issues I was trying to highlight in the previous group—to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to just now—about the need to retain a representative and coherent voice for the individual RFCA memberships. My noble friend argued the case for a national voluntary body very well, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments he put forward.
I will, however, make a couple of points on Amendment 50. I mentioned earlier that my wife has the honour of being His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire. In that role, she is ex officio president of SERFCA. We can easily talk about tradition in the context of supporting the work of the Reserve Forces and cadets. However, while I am a great one for wanting to preserve such traditions, I do not regard tradition on its own as the most important reason for maintaining a statutorily based role for lords-lieutenant in the regional councils.
The main argument is that the involvement of lords-lieutenant as honorary presidents or vice-presidents is highly valued by the RFCAs and by the reservists and cadets. Every year, my wife presents meritorious service awards to reservists in Buckinghamshire who have displayed outstanding achievement and commitment to the volunteer ethos. The significance of these awards to the recipients is without question enhanced by the fact that they are presented by the King’s representative. I would go further by saying that the lord-lieutenant’s role in such presentations plays no small part in maintaining the motivation of our reservists and cadets. Exactly the same point can be made in relation to employer recognition scheme awards and how they are perceived by those in receipt of them. The appointment of lord-lieutenant’s cadets is another example. It is an honour that cadets aspire to.
The Minister has said that there will be nothing to prevent lords-lieutenant fulfilling the same kind of honorary function once the Bill has been enacted. However, I for one do not feel that a loose arrangement of that kind would do justice to the well-defined function that lords-lieutenant fulfil in upholding the dignity of the Crown. It is a function that is born of tradition over many centuries, but, much more importantly, it is one that reflects the direct relationship between the Armed Forces and the Crown. Every time the King’s representative meets a reservist on a public stage to recognise his or her outstanding service, it is a reminder that service men and women across the country owe their loyalty, first and foremost, to the sovereign. It is not satisfactory for a statute of this kind to remain silent on that key constitutional point.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and other noble Lords, which seeks to ensure that lords-lieutenants’ involvement as presidents of regional RFCA councils remains enshrined in primary legislation. I support the comments just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I should declare two interests. First, I was a deputy lieutenant for Greater London and for Norfolk for over 10 years, supporting the lords-lieutenant in those counties. Secondly, my wife is the current Lord-Lieutenant of Norfolk and president of the East Anglia Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments already made in support of Amendment 50 nor dwell on the historic links, as important as they are, between the Crown and the Reserve Forces and cadets in each county through the role of the lord-lieutenant, but instead to emphasise the leadership role that the lords-lieutenant play in their respective counties—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just referred to that. In Norfolk recently, as in many other parts of the country, we had a lot of fires during the drought period. Norfolk was particularly affected by that. My wife required a number of her deputy lieutenants to visit all the volunteer fire stations with letters of thanks from the county on behalf of His Majesty for their service. Therefore, it is not just Reserve Forces and cadets but the emergency services in the round.
This role is currently enshrined in primary legislation. That is where it should remain. Reducing it to secondary legislation seems unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said, it is perhaps even insulting to the Crown and to lords-lieutenant. I understand that, perhaps not surprisingly, neither Buckingham Palace nor, more worryingly, the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have been formally consulted on this proposed change. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
At a time of increased threats to our national security, every effort should be made to promote our Reserve Forces and those, such as lords-lieutenant, who support them. That support is, of course, freely given and at no cost to the nation. Moreover, our cadet forces are the largest youth movement in the country and provide great character training and personal development for those involved. That many cadets go on to join our Regular or Reserve Forces is a most welcome by-product, and, as has already been mentioned, initiatives such as the annual appointment of the lord-lieutenant’s cadet is a much-cherished accolade in most counties and an incentive to excellence.
The Bill as it stands serves to weaken the hugely important links between the Crown, through His Majesty’s lords-lieutenants, and communities throughout the nation at a time of great insecurity. I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to think again. I firmly support Amendment 50.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I say from the outset that I do not oppose reform in principle and I did not put my name to the notices to oppose Clause 38 or Schedule 6 standing part, which the Committee discussed earlier. However, there are two further things in this reorganisation that we must not lose, as other noble Lords have already outlined. I am not persuaded that the Bill as drafted protects either of them.
The first is independent reporting, which is the subject of Amendment 52. The associations provide annual advice to defence by two formal means. One of them is the external scrutiny team report on the state of the Reserve Forces. That report is at present the only genuinely independent annual assessment of the reserves that this House receives. If responsibility for it passes to a body sponsored by, funded by and accountable to the Ministry of Defence, we do not merely change who writes it; we lose the thing that made it worth reading. We would be losing it in the very Bill that increases our reliance on the reserves. A department expanding its call on a force that it also grades is not a comfortable arrangement and Parliament will need that independent view more in the coming decade, not less.
The second is the standing of the regional structure, which Amendments 50 and 51 address. These associations were established in 1908 precisely to root the reserve in the county. As other noble Lords have said, the lords-lieutenant have presided over them ever since.
Amendment 51 would provide a national council of the regional chairs, so that the volunteer structure has a collective voice rather than 13 separate ones. This is not just sentiment and ceremony, important though they are; the office of lord-lieutenant is what gives the reserve unit in a market town its standing within the county, and it costs the public purse nothing at all. My concern is that efficiency reforms have a habit of removing precisely the parts that look inefficient on a spreadsheet because they are voluntary and unpaid.
That is also the point behind Amendment 48. Non-executive members who serve without payment serve because they care about the reserves and cadets. I would be sorry to see that ethos priced.
I recognise the governance case that the Ministry of Defence has made, and everything in this group and the previous one is offered as an attempt to improve the new body rather than obstruct it. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee specifically what safeguards will preserve the independence of the external scrutiny team report and how the role of the lords-lieutenant will be maintained under the new body. If those assurances can be given from the Dispatch Box, a good deal of the anxiety expressed in these two groups of amendments would fall away.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I am pleased to add my name to this suite of amendments that cover a broad area. On Amendment 48, I am sure that any of us who have served as Ministers or council leaders will have appointed loads of people to different bodies over the years. One thing I have noticed in recent times is that a cohort has emerged of people who apply for a lot of different bodies, whether or not they have qualifications for or experience in any of them.
I understand that people are not necessarily expected to do things for nothing, or to be paying out money, and I would be more than content for people to get perfectly fair and reasonable expenses, whether that is for travel or whatever is required. I have no issue with that, but once you move from that level to somebody who, perhaps, almost has a career in sitting on public bodies, that changes the entire ethos and atmosphere around the establishment of these boards.
Therefore, I have not been convinced by what is in the Bill as drafted. Unless there is a complete absence of people applying, or unless there is an obvious shortage of people who are willing to sit on these boards, I cannot understand why we would want to engage in expense to do this. Noble and gallant Lords have far more experience than I have, but if you have an organisation that is working and staffed, what incentive are you giving those who do the grunt work on the ground if board members are being paid? I just think it upsets the balance.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned national resilience and, of course, the Reserve Forces—whether it is a weather catastrophe or something else—will inevitably be part of that. We all know that the Minister could sell snow to the Eskimos if he was put to it, but we have a situation where in the press, even yesterday, there were reports of our training budgets for soldiers apparently being reduced for public expenditure reasons.
We can imagine how, if you were sitting in the Kremlin, you would be looking at that. It sounds so preposterous. The Minister’s right honourable colleague in the other place, the Environment Secretary, is urging us all to stock up on baked beans and candles and to be prepared for an emergency, and in the same breath we are apparently reducing basic training. You are preparing the country for an emergency, urging people to stock up on basics—what is the connection between these two things? I cannot make it out; it seems completely counterintuitive. The Minister knows that I tried to get a PNQ yesterday on that subject but the Falklands won out, quite properly. Still, it is a serious question.
The rhetoric coming from the Government, and from successive Prime Ministers, is that the defence of the nation is the number one priority of government. I do not necessarily want to bring this into it but I gently remind the Minister, if we are trying to save £30 million on training, that we are not trying to save any of the billions that we are spending on the asylum industry, which is just making a mockery of our country. We have to get serious here about what our priorities as a nation really are. This is sending out the wrong message.
With regard to the lords-lieutenant, I remember back home seeing our lord-lieutenant with a cadet, and the cadet was as proud as punch. This was a wonderful opportunity for a young person to take that role. You could see the enthusiasm; that young person was committed to serving as a cadet and it gave that person a wonderful opportunity of a career path moving forward. We would potentially take that away—for what? I do not know.
I ask the Minister seriously to consider that. I hope that, between now and Report, he will talk about these things with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and colleagues. I am sure that his door will be open. It would be most helpful to the House if that were to happen. I doubt that there is a huge amount of difference between all of us. We all want to see the same thing. I accept that you cannot go for ever without looking at change and so on; it is part of life.
On the issue of the report, we all know how local government works. If you are doing an in-house report, people will say to you in the corridor, “Maybe you should be a wee bit careful about that”, or, “Go a bit easier”. We want an accurate, independent report without any strings attached and without any ability to be pressurised financially or in any other way. I would have thought that that is fairly basic. We are not asking for anything that is not sensible or reasonable. This suite of amendments goes a long way to correcting some of the flaws. The drafting may need to be changed—fair enough—but I hope that, in the discussions between now and Report, some of these anomalies can be resolved.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to which I have attached my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, this is a reasonable set of amendments. Again, they speak to issues around the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations; in many ways, they could have been part of a previous group because they are trying to deal with issues associated with Clause 38.
We have already heard articulately this evening that, at the moment, we have reserves, cadet forces and councils that are not paid. Why have His Majesty’s Government thought it necessary or appropriate to bring forward the suggestion of non-executive directors being paid and even, potentially, having pensionable incomes? Is there a reason for it that is eluding the Chamber? At the moment, why that would be necessary or desirable does not seem clear.
On the role of the lords-lieutenant, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it seems wholly inappropriate that that should be consigned to secondary legislation. If it is the case that the Palace and the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have not been consulted, what does the Minister propose to do to rectify that? Pending any consultation, would it not be appropriate to consider removing those parts of the Bill?
On Amendment 52, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, just pointed out, if we want an independent report, we need clarity that it is going to be produced by people independent of the MoD so that they cannot be subject to any sort of informal pressure to produce a report containing what the MoD or Ministers want to hear. This is a suite of reasonable amendments. Can the Minister give us some suggestion of areas in which the Government might be willing to move?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, much has been said by noble Lords, noble and gallant Lords, me and my noble friend Lord De Mauley about the importance of the continuation of the voluntary nature of the RFCAs. This is not because I wish to sound like a stuck record; it is out of a genuine desire to preserve all that has made the reserves and cadets so successful.
Of those factors, the voluntary ethos is paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed so clearly. These are organisations that, despite being established by statute, do not operate as traditional government bodies. They are more akin to civil society organisations; that is their brilliance. The voluntary nature of the membership brings together such a wide array of people, from ex-regulars who do not want to give up on their military life to those who want to give back to society and those who simply want to help young people step up and get on in life. They are not forced into this. It is not their career. They do it because they want to. This is how we attract the best and most dedicated people.
The new structure envisaged by the Government, however, would create a professional board of independent people with, potentially, no relevant experience, as several noble Lords have mentioned, or links to either the cadets or the reserves. This is why I support my noble friend’s Amendments 48 and 51 to prevent non-executive board members being paid and to enshrine a national voluntary body in statute. Only then can we ensure that those who are involved with the RFCAs remain genuinely committed to, and passionate about, the cadets and reserves whom they put themselves forward to serve.
I have spoken already about my desire to conserve the traditional link to the Crown through the involvement of the lieutenancy in the associations. The severance of that link would be a deeply regrettable consequence of this policy and one that was entirely unnecessary. It is for that reason that I strongly support Amendment 50, which would, in essence, preserve an element of the status quo by ensuring that the lords-lieutenant were appointed as presidents of the regional councils. This would not cost the Ministry of Defence a penny or interfere with its bureaucratic restructuring, but it would help to preserve those traditions that have kept our nation going for so long and which might just make our lives a little more enjoyable.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for the amendments whose presentation to us he led on.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as I have said on a number of occasions both to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and to the Committee as a whole, that I will continue to have conversations between now and Report about what we may or may not do with some of the amendments before us. That commitment has already been made. On the points that he made about spending, I am perfectly willing to answer another Private Notice Question or whatever if he is successful at another time, but perhaps not this evening.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their view that the non-executive members of the new RFCA board should be unpaid. That view assumes that unpaid service better demonstrates commitment. I do not accept that. Commitment is not determined by whether a member is remunerated. There is no evidence, in my view, that remuneration reduces dedication to the Reserve Forces or cadet organisations. I take the point that has been made about their voluntary ethos, but, in terms of the board’s membership—
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I suggest, in answer to that point from the Minister, that what it does is call into question their independence from their MoD masters.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That might be a matter for us to consider in the conversation that we have. I do not want to go on for too long, but I understand many of the comments that different people have made this evening; I agree with some of them to a larger or lesser extent. I have never thought, generally speaking, that, in certain circumstances, unpaid work is the way forward. This is one of those situations, in respect of the board: I do not think it undermines the voluntary ethos as a whole because, here, it is related to board membership. In that circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable, given the new board that we wish to set up, that the position should be remunerated, although I accept the point that, in the broader establishment of lords-lieutenant and others across the wider—
Lord Stirrup (CB)
The Minister has said that he does not believe that having paid non-executive directors will lessen their commitment. That is not the question, though. Surely the question is: does having unpaid representatives lessen their commitment? It does not. So why do we want to change it?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is the difference. I understand the whole point about the voluntary ethos generally across the reserves and cadet associations; I absolutely accept that. I am saying, with respect to the board members, that, where you are creating a national board that wants to take on certain statutory functions, that position should be remunerated. That is the difference between us. In the end, personally, I think that that is not inconsistent with the belief that you can have a voluntary ethos.
Look—we have voluntary organisations all over the country that display a voluntary ethos of which we are all proud. At the top of those organisations are people, including board members, who are remunerated. We would not expect them to be able to do that job of work without that remuneration. That is the principle and the point that I am making.
We are committed to equality of opportunity and to breaking down barriers that prevent people contributing to public life, so we want public appointments to be open to all those who have the skills, experience and commitment, not only to those with the financial means to do so without compensation. The Government’s objective is to attract the best candidates from the widest possible range of backgrounds, and retaining the option to remunerate supports that aim. I hope that explains the Government’s position while accepting, again, that many noble Lords will disagree with it. That is my point about payments for the strategic oversight board while respecting the voluntary ethos more widely within the reserves and cadets associations.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. I also thank the Minister. He said that voluntary bodies all over the country have paid people at their heads. Of course they do. I am a trustee or president of, I think, seven charities. Outside the Government, those paid are universally the executives, not the non-executives.
My concern on the point about the amendability of regulations is different from the one that the Minister addressed. My concern is that the Government can amend them—not that we cannot—and that they can do so much more easily than with primary legislation. I am sure we will return to these issues on Report, but for this evening, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Visiting forces agreements(1) The Secretary of State must publish in unredacted form any part of a treaty, memorandum of understanding or agreement between the United Kingdom and any sending country relating to visiting forces containing a decision about a jurisdictional question, including in relation to the Visiting Forces Act 1952.(2) Alongside the material published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the reasons behind any decision about a jurisdictional question contained in the relevant treaty, memorandum of understanding or agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the nature of any agreements reached between the UK and a sending country in relation to jurisdiction over visiting forces, and requires the Secretary of State to set out the reasons behind such a decision.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford cannot be in his place today as he is recovering at home after an operation. We hope that he will be back with us by Report. I have signed his amendment and I will speak to it. I have tabled Amendments 54 and 68, and I have also signed Amendment 55 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. To protect their identities, the victims’ names that I will use are not their own.
I am sure noble Lords will recall the disgraceful case of US spy Anne Sacoolas, who in 2019 was driving on the wrong side of the road in Northamptonshire when she hit and killed Harry Dunn, aged 19. The US authorities then managed to spirit her out of the country to evade justice. We then became aware that the US authorities do not respect our policing and justice systems. She was eventually brought to justice, but only because of Harry’s family’s campaign and then public and governmental pressure.
In recent months, following the brave disclosures made by a victim of rape and sexual assault by a US serviceman on UK soil—not on his USAF base—many more shocking cases have emerged. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Thomas and I spoke of this case. In 2023, Jacob Wulfson, a US Air Force pilot, sexually attacked a Cambridge resident in his own Cambridge property, so not at the Lakenheath base where he worked. His victim, whom I have talked to, was very clear that she was alleging rape and sexual assault.
Under the terms of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, it is clear that, where an offence by an off-duty American serviceman against a British civilian takes place off an American base, the investigation and any subsequent court case should usually be in the UK Crown Court; the rest of the Bill goes on to talk about exceptions to that. What happened in this case was that the Cambridgeshire police waived jurisdiction—and, as I understand it, not at a senior level. The trial took place via a court martial before a US military judge and a panel at the Lakenheath base. All the UK protections that are offered to victims of alleged rape and serious sexual attacks disappeared at that moment. Worse, because the victim is not American, she was not entitled to the minimal victim support that is available to US citizens in US courts, as compared to the victim’s rights here in the UK. Worse still, since the victim was brave enough to talk to the Guardian newspaper, many more similar cases have been reported. So this is now, we understand, not a rare occurrence.
I can see why our beleaguered police forces would welcome the removal of cases from their very heavy workloads, but these decisions are not being made at the right level and it is not clear at all that the CPS is involved. I was astonished to discover that many of the specific agreements between us and other countries on such justice systems are made as secret and confidential between the UK and the country. We in Parliament, the press or even the victims cannot find out the details.
The Guardian exposed another case in July. Rebecca fled the house of an American airman in Suffolk, going to the police to report that he had raped and violently attacked her. She saw specialist health and police staff. They looked after her. She was given an ISVA—an independent sexual violence adviser—to support her in the legal UK process. Then, the USAF at RAF Lakenheath did exactly the same as in the previous case I described and persuaded Suffolk Police to transfer the case to it because justice would be quicker. Then Emily, the wife of the accused—Tyrion Davis—also came forward to say that she had been raped and sexually assaulted by him on a number of occasions. At the subsequent Lakenheath trial, he was convicted of sexually assaulting both Rebecca and Emily. On discovering that the jury panel at Lakenheath would be composed of Davis’s military peers from a small base, by our jury pool for civil court cases standards, Rebecca said:
“It’s like, if I did something wrong outside of work, having all of my nursing colleagues being on the jury … It doesn’t make sense”.
In another case, Hannes Marschalek boasted to his friends that he had exposed himself from his house in the small town of Littleport, near RAF Lakenheath, to a 16 year-old girl and four young women as they went past. When asked why US Air Force authorities had taken over the case, a spokesperson said that they had
“negotiated jurisdiction over this case with the local police using all available facts at the time”.
The accused was able to negotiate a plea bargain in his case and was convicted on a much lesser charge. He later won an appeal in a US military court this year, which quashed his conviction on technical grounds even though the court papers showed that he had texted two friends to say he had
“definitely just flashed a couple [of] ladies walking from the train, LOL”
and later texted:
“I took all of my clothes off when I walked in. I went to go open a window and I was standing right in front of it when they walked by”.
He also admitted in court that he had done this twice before. The US military court sentenced him to two months. If it had been in a UK court, he would probably have received two years. Then, astonishingly, a US military appeal court dismissed the guilty verdict against him, ruling that prosecutors had made an error by charging him under the wrong offence; I suspect that they realised that it should have been a more serious one.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to thank her for supporting my Amendment 55. I am going to concentrate on that amendment, because this is a carefully worked attempt to deal with an issue that the noble Baroness has already clearly outlined—criminal behaviour by US service people in the UK that is not being appropriately dealt with. There are more than 12,000 US military personnel stationed in the United Kingdom, operating from at least 15 bases and facilities. These are people living, working and socialising in communities across the UK. They will and do commit offences.
My amendment is focused particularly on sexual offences, but of course the noble Baroness referred to the disgraceful, awful death of Harry Dunn, and the fact that his family had to campaign against the entire US Government to try to achieve some kind of justice. However, that is not the focus of my amendment. I also note that, given the current state of the US today, these bases are coming under increasing public attention. However, that is not the subject of this amendment either.
I spoke on Second Reading and said that I was going to table this amendment. In doing so, I have to thank the Guardian journalists—and, indeed, editors—who have put a great deal of resources into uncovering this situation. I should perhaps declare my former position as editor of the Guardian Weekly, but I am not influenced by that. I also want to thank the Centre for Military Justice for its advice and assistance in developing the amendment that I put before your Lordships’ Committee today. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, chose not to name any of the people concerned, but—given that she bravely chose to waive her own anonymity and speak to the Guardian—I am going to put forward the name of Sarah Steele, because she wanted to speak publicly about what she went through.
Ms Steele went through an ordeal that was a result of the failure of UK processes. This was an incident, an attack, that took place on UK soil away from a US military base and while the service member was off duty. Yet the US military police quickly took over the investigation and the whole proceeding subsequently took place through the US military justice system, as the noble Baroness said. Indeed, it was held at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US military base in the UK. Ms Steele described this as “confronting … frustrating and distressing”. The procedures she found were “archaic and bizarre”. Think about what she experienced: the procedure was held before a military courtroom, and at points during her testimony fighter jets were taking off just a few hundred metres from where she was speaking. She described the experience as feeling as if she was in an alternative world.
In Ms Steele’s case the US court martial ultimately convicted the defendant of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted him of the sexual assault charge. He received a sentence of six months in a corrections facility, and the conviction was subject to automatic appeal. You might have views about that—I certainly do—but that is not directly what this amendment is about.
As the noble Baroness said, this is one case on which we have a great deal of detail. I will not go through the others she has already outlined. But I will just mention one of the cases in which the victim recounted that the court martial process took two years, she was forced to drop out of a midwifery degree as a result, and she had to give evidence in the same room as the man she had accused, without the protections that victims would normally have in a UK court.
What is the current legal position here? How have we got to this point? My understanding is that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement provides a framework for determining which country has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Where the offence is punishable under the laws of both countries, the sending state has the primary right in certain specified circumstances. These include where the offence is solely against the security or property of the sending state, where it is solely against another member of the force or their civilian component or dependant, or where it arises out of an act done in performance of official duty.
However, where an alleged sexual offence is committed against a civilian who has no connection with the visiting force, and the alleged offence does not arise out of an act done in the performance of official duty, the receiving state, i.e. the UK, has the primary right and jurisdiction. So, the question is not about that; the question is who decides that the UK does not use that jurisdiction, which is where this amendment comes in.
In the UK, we have no process for how the decision should be made, what criteria should apply or what role the victim should have; nor, according to the Centre for Military Justice, is there an equivalent statutory framework governing the transfer of jurisdiction to a foreign military justice system. I want to highlight that we have recognised within our own justice arrangements that decisions about serious sexual offences require appropriate safeguards. Where there is a question of whether a serious offence should be dealt with by a civilian or service justice within the UK, there is now a protocol between the DPP and the Director of Service Prosecutions. It provides for senior level consideration of jurisdiction in rape and sexual assault cases, ordinarily treats offences against civilians as matters for the civilian courts, and provides for the victim’s views to be sought. But there is no equivalent safeguard where a foreign military person is involved.
This amendment fixes that situation. It adds a new Section 3A to the Visiting Forces Act 1952, which would create a clear presumption that where a member of the visiting forces is accused of a qualifying sexual offence against someone with no connection to that force, the case should be investigated by UK police and heard in a UK court. It provides for exceptions—though I find it hard to imagine where there would be exceptions, but that is the way the law works. It also provides what specific matters the prosecutor should consider:
“The gravity of the alleged offence … the connection of the alleged victim and of the offence with the United Kingdom … the capacity of the sending country’s arrangements”—
that is particularly important, given what we have heard about all of this—
“including its treatment of victims … any matters relied on in support of a request for a waiver, and … any representations … made … by the alleged victim”.
Furthermore,
“the decision and the reasons for it”
would have to be recorded
“in writing and, so far as reasonably practicable”,
notified to the victim. It would make a huge difference to all the cases we have been talking about tonight, and it would mean that a person who has already taken the difficult step of reporting an alleged sexual offence would not have to adjust to a justice system they never expected to encounter.
Here, I will put a direct question to the Minister. In the current arrangements, there is an exception to question of duty offences. I hope the Minister agrees with me that a qualifying sexual offence would never be capable of being characterised as arising out of and in the course of official military duty. This and the previous Government have had a very good record of addressing issues of sexual violence in conflict, and it is important that that is made clear, perhaps in writing if not now.
I have another question for the Minister. As a starting point, surely the argument has been made, but do the Government accept that there is currently a gap in the process for deciding whether the United Kingdom should relinquish its primary jurisdiction in serious sexual offence cases involving visiting forces?
This amendment is ultimately about confidence in our justice system and the public’s trust in having visiting military forces on our soil. In closing, I stress that this is not an issue I will allow to slip lightly. We owe it to all the victims we have already heard from—and others we do not know about, but who almost certainly exist—that this be dealt with in the Bill. This is clearly the Bill to deal with this situation now that it has come to light. We will discuss the details and the ways in which we might combine the amendments in this group, or look at how they fit in detail, but something has to be done about this utterly unacceptable current situation.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I do not think I need to wind up from these Benches. My noble friend Lady Brinton has said everything that needs to be said.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. This group gives us an opportunity to discuss a complex but very important area of the law. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I wish him a very speedy recovery. He is a nice guy.
The Visiting Forces Act 1952 establishes the legal framework that governs the relationship between the United Kingdom and those states that send members of their armed forces to our territory. The issue sits at the very intersection of national sovereignty, the rights of victims and this country’s long-standing alliance relationships. It is right that this House probes how this balance is struck.
I turn first to Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would require publication, in unredacted form, of any part of a visiting force’s agreement touching on jurisdiction, together with the reasoning behind it. I merely observe that a statutory duty to publish in unredacted form is a very blunt instrument to apply to what are, in many cases, live diplomatic and security arrangements with partner nations. It may be useful if the Minister could explain what mechanisms already exist for Parliament to scrutinise these matters without compelling wholesale publication.
Regardless of the amendment’s fate, I hope the Minister will take away from this debate that, whatever one’s view on publication, in any case where a jurisdictional dispute arises between the United Kingdom and a sending state it must be beyond doubt exactly how that dispute is to be resolved, who takes the decision and on what criteria. Ambiguity at that point serves no one.
On Amendment 55, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is right to press the Government on how such cases are handled. Where I part company with her is on the question of necessity, because the outcome she seeks already exists in law. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 does not hand jurisdiction wholesale to sending states. Section 3 of the Act states that the sending state’s military authorities have the primary right of jurisdiction only where the offence arises out of official duty, is against another member of the visiting force or corresponding civilian component, or is against property belonging to the force, its members or dependants. In any case where a member of a visiting force commits a criminal offence against a dependent British citizen, the jurisdiction lies with British authorities. Thus, such an offence would be investigated by the territorial police force for the area and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the case would be heard in a British court. This is the case for all offences, however serious, including sexual offences. This position is unambiguously clarified in the Crown Prosecution Service’s published guidance.
Furthermore, where the NATO status of forces agreement is also engaged the position is, if anything, even stronger. The CPS guidance notes that, taken together with the 1951 NATO agreement, this produces dual jurisdiction in any case where the victim is a dependant who is either a UK national or habitually resident here. A dependant, rather than a fellow service member, is precisely the category of victim that I believe the noble Baroness’s amendment is designed to protect.
Where cases have an international dimension going wider than the visiting forces framework—as, for example, in dealings with the United States—the mechanism for resolving concurrent jurisdiction is also already in place. The guidance governing such cases between our two countries commits prosecutors to weighing each case on its individual merits, guided throughout by a commitment to fairness and objectivity.
I will not detain the Committee further on the remaining amendment in this group concerning the list of countries in Section 1(1)(a) of the 1952 Act, save to say that I believe that the United States is counted as a visiting force. The Visiting Forces (Designation) Order 1954 exercises the power in Section 1(2) of the 1952 Act to designate Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States of America as visiting forces. The US is also covered under the NATO SOFA. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this interpretation is correct.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their important contributions on an incredibly important area of law, in relation to which a number of matters have been raised, recently and not so recently, that cause us all concern. For legal reasons, I will read verbatim the information I have before me; this is such an important area, and I do not want to be misquoted as that would not help the various people we wish to see being helped. Noble Lords will notice that when I get towards the end of my remarks, I will make one or two important comments that I hope will offer some, if not total, reassurance to your Lordships and to those who read our proceedings about how we are trying to move forward.
The legal framework governing the allocation of jurisdiction between the UK and a visiting force is set out in UK domestic law through Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, with further reference to Section 12. This framework applies both to states that are party to the NATO status of forces agreement and to non-NATO states that have bilateral arrangements with the UK and are designated under Section 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. In all such cases, visiting forces remain subject to the provisions of the Act. Any other agreements or arrangements are modelled on the provisions of the NATO status of forces agreement and reflect the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The Visiting Forces Act is already publicly available and the principles within it are applied by UK prosecuting authorities on a case-by-case basis when questions of jurisdiction occur. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her views on the Bill and acknowledge her concerns, and those of others, about the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and why the United States is not explicitly referenced as being subject to the legislation. I reassure her and others that the United States is already included as subject to the Visiting Forces Act by virtue of Section (1)(1)(b). This specifically explains that, along with the countries individually named in Section 1(1)(a), a country will be subject to the Act’s provisions if it is designated by Order in Council. The United States, along with Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Norway, were included in the Visiting Forces (Designation) Order 1954, Statutory Instrument 634/1954, and so fall under the Visiting Forces Act 1952.
On Amendment 55, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Brinton, for their views on the Bill and acknowledge their interest in the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and the proposal to restrict and regulate how requests for transferring jurisdiction are determined in cases involving qualifying sexual offences. I begin by reassuring them that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that alleged sexual offences perpetrated by visiting forces are treated with the utmost seriousness and that jurisdiction for such cases is decided in accordance with the extant legislation.
I am aware of recent cases highlighted in the media, most notably the case concerning US airman Jacob Wulfson, which raised concerns regarding the extent to which the right decisions regarding jurisdiction for prosecution had been made. Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 already sets out the limited circumstances in which jurisdictions should be transferred from the UK to a visiting force. The decisions on whether or not to do so are made independently by the relevant police force or the Crown Prosecution Service in response to any request from a visiting force. The Government are committed to identifying and applying the lessons arising from the issues raised in these cases. This includes the application and operation of jurisdictional arrangements under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and how these are implemented across the criminal justice system.
In particular, I welcome the action taken by the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who has written to all chief constables in England and Wales to remind forces of their responsibilities under the Visiting Forces Act 1952. I understand that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is also considering whether further formal guidance for police forces is required to reinforce the principles of the existing legislation.
As I said, I am deeply concerned by the reports of how jurisdiction was handled in the Wulfson case. Victims of such serious offences need to be supported, and their cases treated with the seriousness, dignity and compassion that they deserve. This includes ensuring that jurisdiction for alleged offences is only ceded to a visiting force where absolutely appropriate under UK law and the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance. I have directed my officials to work with the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and any other government departments as required to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is assisting in that outcome. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I have no doubt that these discussions will continue, but we understand the seriousness of the topics that have been raised and the need for us to consider how we can deal with this.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I wonder if I could ask a brief question, because it is relevant to my response to the Minister’s contribution. Is there currently an agreement between the UK and the USA, as is described in the Visiting Forces Act and referred to elsewhere? Other countries have it. Is there already such an agreement about protocols for the sort of case we have been discussing this evening, along with other details that are not relevant? I will leave my question at that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am concerned about misinforming your Lordships on legal matters. When I take legal advice, I will write as to the correct answer to that. I will copy in other Members of your Lordships’ House and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I understand if the Minister will want to write in answer to this question as well. He referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council considering further formal guidance and writing to forces. What will that be based on? What is the legal basis of this? Where is it coming from? Surely, it is a matter for Parliament and not just for the police chiefs to work out the way forward. Where is the framework coming from?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not sure if I totally understand what the noble Baroness means. I thought it was a pretty important step that the National Police Chiefs’ Council was taking in looking at whether the current guidance was appropriate or further guidance was needed to ensure that some of the issues that have arisen and some of the concerns that have been rightly expressed were avoided in the future. That is the normal practice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a whole range of very difficult issues. It reflects on the law and the guidance with respect to the law when considering whether any of its guidance needs to be changed or adapted. That is my understanding of the guidance to be issued to the various police forces: it is to ensure that questions of jurisdiction are properly answered within the context of the law as it stands.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate. Earlier, I should also have thanked the Centre for Military Justice, the Guardian and the women I spoke to. I was glad to hear the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Unsurprisingly, we agree almost entirely on the problems. I also agree with her that we will not let this go, whether it goes beyond the passage of this Bill or not. I am grateful too, to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his comments. I am particularly pleased that he agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me that it is clear that sexual attacks on UK soil are not part of Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act, where the exceptions might be. That is extremely helpful and I am very grateful to him.
I particularly want to thank the Minister for his extremely well-constructed and considered speech. What is really important is that we find a solution. I agree with the Minister that there is provision in the Visiting Forces Act, so his exposition of that was really important. Our problem, as a Parliament, is that we need to resolve the problem that the victims faced. That is why I am very grateful for his comments about the Police Chiefs’ Council and the guidance it is looking at offering. The one organisation that does not seemed to have a role in any of this at the moment is the CPS. It clearly needs to, as there are issues other than taking the statement of the victim, making sure they seek medical help, and all the other issues I outlined in that specific case. There is also the question of charging levels, which would then affect what happens and whether there might be a reason why the case should be considered elsewhere.
I will conclude, because these were only probing amendments on my behalf and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I wonder whether it would be helpful to have a meeting between Committee and Report with the Minister, somebody from the Home Office who can talk about the policing side and the Police Chiefs’ Council, and somebody from the CPS. What both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I are trying to achieve is a formal framework that means that one police force cannot do something different from another, and that, as the decision goes up the CPS, the more serious it gets, it should not necessarily stand with a junior prosecutor at the CPS in a particular area. That is how it becomes easy to say, “Yes, okay, take over this case because it will decrease our workload”. That is clearly the argument the US Air Force at Lakenheath were using. On that basis, and given the hour and the number of groups we still have to go through, I will withdraw my amendment.
“(8) After section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (salvage claims against the Crown and Crown rights of salvage and regulation thereof) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any vessel, including Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, cargo or equipment which has sunk or been stranded while in military service.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 230 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so that subsection (1) does not apply to military or Royal Auxiliary Fleet vessels.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 55A stands in my name. It is rather a late amendment, and this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for inadvertently gazumping his amendment on Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. I look forward to hearing his contribution on that in a moment. I read with interest his comments on that issue at Second Reading, and I am glad to have the chance to take part in this debate on that issue as well, since I do believe that Clause 48 should be in this Bill.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, mentioned the “Gloucester”—not HMS “Gloucester”, for she was built and launched in that dark period of our history when we temporarily cast aside the monarchy. The “Gloucester” was lost off the Norfolk coast on 6 May 1682. On board, and thankfully not lost with her, were James, Duke of York, who went on to become King James II, and John Churchill, who went on to become the first Duke of Marlborough. As the noble Lord rightly said, had they been lost, the course of not just British but global history would have been changed. Such is the power of our maritime heritage.
I had a solemn and more recent reminder of this over the Summer Recess, when I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I found it profoundly moving to see the buoy in San Carlos Water, which marks the resting place of HMS “Antelope”, one of the Royal Navy warships that was lost in that conflict—along with HMS “Ardent”, HMS “Coventry” and HMS “Sheffield”, as well as RFA “Sir Galahad”, SS “Atlantic Conveyor” and the landing craft Foxtrot 4.
The Falklands War and those who gave their lives in waging it were among the spurs for the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, which Clause 48 seeks to amend. I support the ways in which it proposes to do so. While the 1986 Act gave immediate and automatic protection to wrecked aircraft, it requires wrecked ships to be individually designated in order for them to be protected. This means that shipwrecks remain vulnerable to disturbance, souvenir hunting, salvage activity or archaeological interference before formal designation has occurred. That process requires secondary legislation. Noble Lords across the Committee know how long it can take to obtain legislative slots. Indeed, it took 16 years—until 2002—for the first designations under the 1986 Act to come into force. Those who have been lost at sea in the service of our nation should not have to wait for secondary legislation to deliver the protection that they deserve.
Clause 48 also seeks to remove the restrictive time constraints which apply to protected places and controlled sites—broadly since the First World War for the former or within 200 years for the latter—to ensure that historic military shipwrecks from before these rather arbitrary cut-off points can also be protected. There should be no temporal limit to our gratitude to those who have died to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today.
Clause 48 will not change the system which has been well understood by responsible divers for many years. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted on a “look but don’t touch” basis and diving in a controlled site will continue to require a licence. However, the changes in Clause 48 will help to deter unauthorised salvage, damage to our shared underwater heritage and the desecration of the final resting places of brave service personnel.
I hope, therefore, that Clause 48 will remain part of the Bill—also because I seek to amend it. My Amendment 55A seeks to add to Clause 48 and clarify a worrying confusion in the law which pertains to military shipwrecks. The UK has long asserted that sunken state vessels enjoy protection through the principle of sovereign immunity. This means that they cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of another state. Crucially, the ships cannot have salvage services conferred on them without the permission of His Majesty’s Government.
As a proud seafaring nation with a history as long as ours, the UK has a considerable number of sunken state vessels—currently estimated to be over 5,000—lying at the bottom of seas and oceans across the globe. The principle of sovereign immunity is used to protect these vessels, their heritage significance and the last known resting place of the sailors who went down with them. Without the principle of sovereign immunity, our underwater cultural heritage would be extremely vulnerable to salvage, since consent to salvage sunken vessels is not required in law except in very limited circumstances.
It ought to be as simple as that, but it may not be. The Crown Proceedings Act first muddied the waters in 1947, modifying the application of sovereign immunity to His Majesty’s vessels by stating that the civil law of salvage would apply to them. In effect, this removed the protection of sovereign immunity from sunken state vessels. This provision was subsequently restated in Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which brought the 1989 International Convention on Salvage into force in the United Kingdom.
In the decades since, the Ministry of Defence has taken the view that Section 231 of the Merchant Shipping Act applies only in UK territorial waters—out to 12 nautical miles—and that sunken state wrecks beyond our territorial waters remain protected under the principle of sovereign immunity from unauthorised salvage. That is certainly the interpretation reflected in the most recent guidance published in 2014 by the MoD and DCMS. Although it pre-dated my time as Heritage Minister, that was the guidance in place when I served at DCMS in the last Parliament.
Since then, I have been alerted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee to legal research conducted by academics at Plymouth University’s law school, which suggests that this interpretation may not be correct. Their finding is that the effect of Section 230(1) of the 1995 Act is to remove the protection of sovereign immunity from all state vessels wherever they are located, leaving sunken ships from the Royal Navy and other state vessels vulnerable to salvage without the permission of the United Kingdom.
The academics who conducted that research are naturally concerned to have reached that conclusion, but they are convinced of it and very keen that action should be taken to remedy it. Even if their conclusions are debatable, as points of law often are, I hope the Minister will agree that this is not the sort of matter where there ought to be any doubt or scope for unseemly legal disputes.
The remedy I have suggested in Amendment 55A is not the perfect one—I am limited somewhat by the scope of the Bill—but I ask the Minister whether he will look into this matter carefully, consider the legal research that has been conducted and see whether there is the possibility of using the Bill to put the matter entirely beyond doubt. I would certainly be very glad to discuss this further with him, in concert with the legal experts who have looked at this in greater detail. I beg to move.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
I oppose Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. There are two issues here. One relates to the wrecks that contain military remains; the other relates to diving activities related to those wrecks, which the Bill will describe as protected places. My contention is that insufficient detail has been provided in relation to the nature and definition of the wrecks themselves, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the diving community, whose hitherto legitimate activities could be constrained or rendered illegal by Clause 48 as it stands.
With regard to the wrecks themselves, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke about at length, there can be no issue with the principle that warships that contain the human remains of service men and women who lost their lives carrying out their naval duties should remain undisturbed, as is the case with aircraft or bodies recovered from battlefields. However, there is an issue about which wrecks qualify to be covered by Clause 48.
The Minister will be aware, from correspondence that he has received and which I have seen, that many believe there is considerable ambiguity on what is proposed to be covered under Clause 48 and what is not. Many believe the definition of “military service” is too vague. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, has proposed one alternative. There are many other alternatives, one such being, “A commissioned military vessel or vessel under direct Admiralty command at the time of loss”. My point is that there are several definitions that could apply and that the “military service” definition is too vague.
Fortunately, time precludes a detailed scrutiny of the concerns raised, but my request on this aspect is that further consideration is given to the ships to be covered by this clause and that clarification is provided, ideally by Report—or, indeed, that this clause does not stand part of the Bill pending further consideration and fresh legislation proposed on another occasion.
With regard to diving activities in and around designated wrecks, I declare an interest as chair of the Gloucester 1682 Trust, although I am not a diver myself. The Minister knows, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as former Ministers, that I have been raising the issue of the wreck of the “Gloucester”, lost off Norfolk on 6 May 1682, for several years. I will not detain the Committee now with the otherwise fascinating story of the “Gloucester”—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to it and its history is now a matter of interesting public record—but it has drawn me into an understanding of diving and the problems that Clause 48, as drafted, creates for the hobby diving community, which has tens of thousands of participants in this country. I touched on some of those issues at Second Reading.
I will try to be brief. The diving community has a number of concerns. Among the issues is that the prohibition on the use of grapnels, anchors or shots should be removed, as their use is essential on health and safety grounds to protect scuba divers, particularly in the uncertain waters of the North Sea. The grounds for rejection of this objection pose a situation which, in practice, does not really exist. The damage that could be caused by such grapnels and anchors is absolutely minimal and not going to be of a major nature as the Bill rather suggests.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we have had two fascinating speeches from noble Lords who have considerable expertise and interest in the questions of military remains. I will be interested in the Minister’s responses, particularly to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, that further work be done on this clause. Again, as with the previous group of amendments, it would be helpful to know what consultation His Majesty’s Government have undertaken on the implications of the clause for divers.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am probably about to provide a less fascinating speech. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and, as such, I am pleased to support his amendment. Clause 48 will automatically expand the protection provided by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to every vessel lost in military service, rather than requiring each one to go through a separate designation order. That is a welcome and overdue reform.
However, the issue that my noble friend has raised, while related, pertains to a slightly different problem. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 currently applies the ordinary civil law of salvage to His Majesty’s ships in much the same way as it would to a vessel in private ownership, subject only to a narrow procedural safeguard on how any claim may be brought. In practice, that treats the wreck of a Royal Navy vessel, which very often will be the final resting place of Royal Navy sailors, as well as the property of the Crown, as though it were, to be honest, fair game for private salvage.
Amendment 55A is an attempt to rectify that situation by restoring the principle of sovereign immunity and aligning the law on salvage with the spirit of what I think Clause 48 is trying to achieve. In setting out the case for his amendments, my noble friend has referenced a group of academics who have highlighted this issue with the application of civil salvage law in relation to Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I would also be grateful to the Minister if he could confirm the Ministry of Defence’s interpretation of that position.
The Government may very well believe there to be no problem and the Minister may not agree with the interpretation of the law by the academics mentioned by my noble friend but, whether or not the Government agree, is not the key issue that the law can even be questioned in the first place? The fact that there exists sufficient legal ambiguity to allow academics to come to this view means that there is a risk of people attempting to salvage and recover military wrecks, believing that they are allowed to do so. I hope that the Government will agree to meet my noble friend and those others who are concerned so that the legal position can be clarified.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, proposes to remove the clause entirely. I remember with pleasure our extensive exchanges on the “Gloucester”, but I most respectfully do not entirely agree with that proposal. It is my interpretation that divers will remain free to visit sites on the same “Look but don’t touch” basis that already applies to protected places. I remember numerous letters as a Minister in that context. What becomes unlawful is the disturbance, damage or entry into enclosed parts of a wreck without Ministry of Defence authorisation. I believe that the intention is to prevent poor behaviour by the minority who treat these sites as a source of souvenirs, which is not the ordinary conduct of responsible divers. We have a duty to prevent the desecration of the final resting places of all our war dead. They gave their lives and service to our nation. That is the least they deserve. If these measures can prevent such desecration by unlicensed diving, I suggest that they deserve our support.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I will start with Amendment 55A from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I thank him for bringing that forward in relation to salvage claims against military and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels via the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is the principal piece of primary legislation in the UK that governs maritime law, ship registration and safety standards. We will investigate the noble Lord’s concerns and comments about Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 before Report and come back with appropriate comments with respect to that. I hope that that is a reassurance to him about all the various comments he helpfully made for your Lordships’ House.
Moving to Clause 48 and the debate on that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his views on the Bill and acknowledge his concerns about Clause 48 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Clause 48 of the Bill addresses the existing disparity between the protection of military aircraft and vessels under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The 1986 Act secures the protection from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded, and of associated human remains, making it an offence to enter or interfere with a military wreck site without an authorised licence.
The Act provides for two types of protection: protected places and controlled sites, as designated through a statutory instrument in tranches. To date, a total of 129 wrecked vessels have been designated in eight tranches, the last coming into force on 30 March 2026. However, the Act does not currently allow designation of a vessel that was sunk or stranded on or before 4 August 1914 as a protected place, or designation of a site as a controlled site if over 200 years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding of the vessel or aircraft. As a result of these time limits, older military shipwrecks lack protection. For example, the “Gloucester”, which sank in 1682, carrying the future James II and with a loss of around 200 lives, which I know from our discussions and correspondence is of particular interest to the noble Lord, is currently unprotected.
Clause 48 amends Section 1 of the 1986 Act so that all military shipwrecks which are the last resting places of serving personnel are automatically designated as protected places. This ensures alignment with the protection already afforded to military aircraft. The clause also removes the restrictive time constraints that apply to both protected places and controlled sites, ensuring that the nation’s historic military shipwrecks, which are currently excluded from inclusion by virtue of the time limits specified, can be protected. By providing automatic protection to all military shipwrecks, the MoD will enable a significant improvement in the way our maritime military graves and underwater cultural heritage are protected.
Significant advances in underwater technology and technical diving are leading to more of our military wrecks being discovered. That is good news, of course, but it also requires us to do all we can to protect them. The noble Baroness alluded to the reasons why we are doing this; those advances in technology are one of them. We need to do all we can to protect them once they have been discovered and identified in order to prevent them being disturbed or damaged and to prevent interference with military remains.
The recent discovery of HMS “Tiger” off the Isle of Wight is a prime example of why the amendments are being sought—again, this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. HMS “Tiger” was discovered 118 years after she collided with HMS “Berwick” during a training exercise and was cut clean in two. Currently, she can be designated only as a controlled site simply due to the fact that she sank in 1908, effectively restricting access to divers. Through the changes in the Bill, HMS “Tiger” will become a protected place, permitting non-intrusive activities such as diving without a licence. It is important that we protect UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial waters and international waters. I hope that there is no doubt that our intention is to do all we can to offer better protection in order to prevent the unauthorised desecration of these historically important sites, which are often the last resting places of our serving personnel.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that many of the provisions already contained in the current Act will remain. Clause 48 simply seeks to strengthen it. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted—again, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—on a “look but don’t touch” basis, while a licence will still be required to dive on a controlled site. Giving all military wrecks “protected place” status will help deter unauthorised salvage and the desecration of the wrecks of military remains of service personnel; where appropriate, it will enable the MoD to prosecute those who flout the law in this respect.
I assure the Committee that there are already provisions in the Act to permit diving on UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial and international waters. However, to assist divers in navigating their way around the changes proposed, the MoD will be updating and publishing its policies on underwater cultural heritage, should the Bill be passed. I also assure the Committee—it may have been the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about this—that the MoD, in consultation with the British Sub-Aqua Club, which is the UK governing body for sub-aqua diving, has produced a set of questions and answers designed to inform its members and the diving community of the proposed changes, which were published on 2 September 2026.
With those necessary reassurances, I hope that the Committee will see the need for Clause 48 and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As he rightly says, the technology and its increased availability to many more people is the reason why the broader changes that the Government are seeking to make through the Bill are so timely and needed.
On my Amendment 55A, I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to investigate the position in detail before Report. I understand why, before that investigation takes place, he does not want to say any more about it now, but I reiterate my offer to speak to him further if I can be of assistance or put him in touch with those who have conducted the research that led me to table this amendment. If, as he mentioned at the end, his department and DCMS are going to update their guidance documents in the light of it, that will be necessary so that there can be absolute legal certainty for those who wish to dive and enjoy the investigations and the sport that they do, but also for those, including divers, who care deeply about the sanctity of these sites and their heritage significance.
With gratitude, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
“Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/330) are amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom), in 9.18 of table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications)—(a) after (b), insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who has served for four or more years”(b) in the closing words, leave out “and (b)” and insert “, (b), and (c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 56, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for adding his name in support of it. I also thank the Royal British Legion for its guidance in drafting this amendment.
Amendment 56 proposes amending the nationality fees regulations of 2018 to waive fees for certain Armed Forces veterans who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the terms of my amendment featured in all three major party manifestos for the 2024 election. Let me quote them briefly. Labour said:
“We will … scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents”.
The Conservatives said:
“We will extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants”.
The Liberal Democrats said that they would:
“Secure a fair deal for the armed forces community … by … Waiving application fees for indefinite leave for members of the armed forces on discharge, and their families”.
Nothing has happened since except that, in response to follow-up Written Questions last year, a Home Office Minister said this on 13 March:
“We continue to keep this policy under review in the context of our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system”.
The Ministry of Defence responded a week later, saying that it was
“actively working with the Home Office to take this forward”.
In short, prevarications apart, nothing has happened. To have a reply saying:
“We continue to keep this policy under review in … our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system”
is surely classic Sir Humphrey-speak. The Home Office should be ashamed of itself.
The immigration system must be under constant study, not a one-off difficulty. What wider considerations are implied? The Government have recently been priding themselves on their reduction in illegal arrivals of over 40% and an increase in repatriations. There seems to be no crisis or wider aspect so great that the Government cannot immediately introduce this universally manifesto-promised arrangement.
Families of service personnel who have qualified for indefinite leave to remain are faced with visa fees that were £155 in 2003 but have risen to no less than £3,226 per person as of 8 April—a staggering increase. So a spouse, their partner and two children applying for ILR now have to find almost £13,000, on top of their fares and relocation costs, to move to the UK. This is no way to treat veterans and their families.
Such prevarication and inertia does not seem to be even related to the present Government. For more than 10 years, I and others pressed the Home Office to grant ILR to members of the Armed Forces who had been recruited and served in Hong Kong. All were members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. Repeated Home Office answers were varied ways of saying, “It is under active consideration”, or, “A decision will be made as soon as possible”. I once christened this Home Office foot-dragging as repetitive inactivity syndrome. The Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans had to wait over a decade for their approval.
Of course the Home Office faces pressures over immigration arrangements, but it flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and to treating veterans fairly to have not yet honoured their manifesto pledge. It has cross-party support. Will the Minister take this back and quickly resolve it with the Home Office? I beg to move.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 56 from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain applications for spouses and immediate family members of serving personnel and veterans. I have tabled Amendment 66, which seeks to achieve the same outcome through a slightly different route: by requiring the Government to bring forward secondary legislation within a specified timeframe. My amendment is designed to address some of the concerns raised by Ministers in the other place around specific approaches and wording.
Frankly, I do not mind what legislative approach is taken provided the issue is resolved. I do not need to add to the noble and gallant Lord’s exposition of the issue, but I say to the Minister that, typically, the Immigration Rules are changed twice yearly, with the next set expected in October. Can he provide greater clarity on the Government’s timetable for action? Can he reassure military families that this commitment—by all three major parties—will finally be delivered in the forthcoming changes this autumn?
I turn to Amendment 57 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Harlech, to whom I am grateful for their support. At the heart of this is how we support military families, but it is also about military capability. The strategic defence review identified a workforce crisis. When our Armed Forces depend so heavily on experience and invest so much in their personnel, retention matters as much as recruitment. That is why I welcome the many provisions in the Bill designed to strengthen service life. Amendment 57 proposes a relatively small change, but one that could make a meaningful difference to military families and retention.
The recently published Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey underlines the reality for families. Some 78% of service families have children, and one in five have children who are under two years old, yet a quarter of service families live apart during the working week, rising to almost 40% in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Nearly three in 10 families experienced separation of three months or more during the past year.
At present, serving fathers receive two weeks of paternity leave at full pay. However, for military families, returning to work after two weeks is not a return to a normal commute; it means returning to a posting many hours away, or to months of separation. That is why this issue matters so deeply to those who serve. One serving soldier told the Dad Shift:
“Being posted 4 hours away from my child when she was born was tough, only having 2 weeks to bond before I was back to being 200 miles away with limited time to travel back and see her was tough and has definitely caused irreparable damage to our relationship, ultimately leading to the collapse of my relationship with her mother too”.
These challenges are reflected further in the Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey: 52% of spouses disagree that they feel valued by the service, 34% say they would feel happier if their partner left the military, while 44% have at some time in the past year encouraged their partner to leave.
The factors driving dissatisfaction are revealing. The impact on careers, the amount of separation from spouses and the effect on children are the top three reasons. Improving paternity leave is not a silver bullet, but the evidence consistently shows that it supports maternal employment, strengthens family relationships and improves outcomes for children. At a time when retention is a strategic issue, we should take seriously reforms that strengthen the family life of those who serve. The experiences of serving personnel illustrate why. One RAF officer recalled:
“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice ... With only two weeks available, time spent dealing with complications or hospital stays can consume a significant proportion of the leave itself”.
The Minister may point to shared parental leave or the possibility of additional compassionate leave as options to resolve this. However, service families often describe those options as difficult to access and inconsistently applied. One army officer reported:
“I pushed and took Shared Parental Leave but I had to threaten a Service Complaint to do so with my work at the time”.
He added that if the process was difficult for a senior officer, it would likely be much harder for more junior personnel. Likewise, a RAF corporal told the Dad Shift:
“I’ve had my paternity leave handled three different ways for my three children; it does come down to that reoccurring line manager lottery issue unfortunately”.
That inconsistency in itself is part of the problem. Families should not have to rely on confidence, rank or managerial discretion to receive adequate support at such a significant moment in their lives. Soldiers, sailors and aviators should not have to worry about explaining to their commanding officer that their wife and baby are struggling with breastfeeding and need more support, or that their wife’s stitches are infected, or that they are worried that she might be suffering from postnatal depression but cannot even be sure because they are not home enough to tell.
Of course, the impact of leave on operational readiness must be taken into account. Unlike maternity leave, paternity leave is not exempt from the provision in JSP 760 that
“the granting and timing of all forms of absence … is to be at the discretion of the Service and is subject to operational requirements and the general exigencies of the service”.
Nothing in my amendment changes this.
The sacrifices made by those serving in our Armed Forces are shared by their families. When a child is born, those pressures are felt even more acutely. Two weeks of paternity leave is increasingly out of step with the realities of modern family life, the practices of leading employers, and the approach taken by many of our closest allies, with Australia offering eight weeks of paid paternity leave and the United States offering 12 weeks to its military personnel. When Congress extended that entitlement, bipartisan supporters from both Houses described it as a matter of military readiness and national security.
I hope, therefore, in responding to this group, that the Minister will recognise not only the family case for reform but the strategic one. Supporting military families at the moment they need it most is the right thing to do, but it would also be an investment in retention, morale and the long-term strength of our Armed Forces.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and to attach my name to Amendment 57, which would provide for six weeks of fully paid paternity leave for servicepeople. The Committee will see that this is perhaps not the broadest alliance across the political spectrum that you might find, but it is certainly up there in the spread that you will typically see in your Lordships’ House.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has powerfully outlined, the arguments for the amendment, which I will not repeat, are twofold. First, it is about the welfare of children. It is about children being able to establish a proper relationship and foundation for family life—something that will be with them through their lives. It is also, of course, a big issue for retention and recruitment of servicepeople, so it is an issue for the effectiveness of our Armed Forces.
At Second Reading, I addressed this issue with a number of quotes from the survey. I will just add one here. Think about what two weeks is like. This is an RAF officer from the Dad Shift survey:
“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice … even low-level complications might result in the first week of paternity leave being spent in hospital”.
Those are not circumstances in which, for one week, you will establish a stable relationship—they are extremely stressful, extremely difficult, extremely unnatural circumstances. Then maybe you will have one week or no weeks after that. I know that the Minister said at Second Reading that there is a broader government review of paternity leave, but I do not think, given that we have this Bill before us, that there is any need or any argument for waiting. Action can be taken—and clearly needs to be taken—now.
Amendment 67 in this group is in my name. It is a fairly simple amendment which would put into the Bill that the Government must establish a concessionary travel scheme for veterans’ bus travel. The amendment does not specify the exact detail of what concessionary bus travel might be provided, how it might be set out or what level it might be set at; that is clearly the sort of thing that is appropriate for a statutory instrument. If we think about the situation of veterans, some may qualify for concessionary travel because they are older or because they have a qualifying disability, but what about the veteran at the age of 30, 40 or 50 who has no qualifying disability but who returns to the UK, perhaps after many years of service, not having a stable base here in the UK?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and that in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. The shared aim of these amendments is to improve morale among our Armed Forces and, as we have heard, to improve recruitment, but also, crucially, to improve retention, which has really suffered over a long period.
It is important to recognise that service personnel understand that operational need will come first. When they sign up, when they swear that oath, they accept that there will be times when they will be away on a deployment. They will miss birthdays, christenings, weddings—it comes with the territory. They might not always like it, but they accept it. What this gets at is not having that parental time in the crucial early stages of a new life when you are not at home, when you are on base. That is the difference, and we should be doing something to bring ourselves in line—I remember saying this earlier today—with our Five Eyes counterparts. I think there is a trend here, across the different groups and amendments, whereby we are way behind what the rest of our allies are doing in these categories. With that, I will sit down.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has held His Majesty’s Governments, of whichever complexion, to account over the years, particularly, as he mentioned earlier, over the rights of the Hong Kong military. He rightly reminds us that all the main parties gave commitments to waive fees for the families of service veterans who served with our Armed Forces. Will the Minister commit to look into this? My suspicion is that when he was on the Opposition Benches, he would have been speaking quite loudly in favour of reducing the fees; it is clearly something we should be doing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, eloquently explained the importance of extending paternity leave and the reasons for that. I will not go any further. There is no need to rehearse that at this time of night, other than to express the views of these Benches in support of the proposals and to ask His Majesty’s Government to think carefully about the importance of extending paternity leave, especially for reasons of retention.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Harlech. I am pleased to be able to say that we on these Benches support this amendment. We have already waived the fees for indefinite leave to remain for Commonwealth citizens who have served in our Armed Forces, in recognition of the sacrifice for our nation that that service represents. It is difficult to see any principled basis for stopping short of extending that same waiver to their spouses and children. These are, after all, the families who have supported that service, often at real personal cost to themselves. As has already been said, extending fee waivers of this kind to service families was a manifesto commitment at the last election made by my party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Given that shared commitment, I hope the Minister will explain today why it has not yet been implemented, and when the Government intend to act.
I now turn to Amendment 57, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Penn among others. I hope she will understand why, unfortunately, I am not able to support this. The current scheme already provides two weeks of paid paternity leave with the ability to agree further paid leave on a unit-by-unit basis where circumstances allow. We believe that flexibility matters. Operational necessity varies enormously from unit to unit and deployment to deployment. Decisions about what additional leave is achievable are, in our view, best worked out between the individual serviceman and his commanding officer. It is that commanding officer who understands the operational picture on the ground best.
I am aware of the obvious drawback to this policy of flexibility—that it will create unequal and disparate outcomes. Some units may be more generous than others. However, I think that that is an unfortunate fact of life, and is eminently preferable to a centrally set period, fixed in statute at six weeks regardless of circumstance and operational necessity. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, given the hour, let me deal with this head on. I shall start with Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The Government, the Opposition and all of us, it seems to me, are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, building on the existing fee waiver in place. Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver this commitment in a way that is fair, comprehensive and achievable. I understand that the noble and gallant Lord will have heard that language before. He asked me to have an urgent conversation with the Home Office to see what progress has been made, and I will certainly do that. That is the important commitment to make. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, asked for that as well, so let me follow that up, and I will certainly talk to the Home Office. Those there, too, will have heard the well-constructed speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asking when this will happen—and it is about time it did. I hope that, with that reassurance, he can see the importance of putting amendments at Committee stage.
I turn to the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on her Amendment 57 and the various points that she so eloquently made about childcare, family life, parental leave and all those various topics. She will know that there is a government review going on around parental leave, pay and many other issues. The review is considering costs, benefits and potential reforms across the system as a whole and principally covers civilian parental leave and pay entitlements. The MoD will consider the outcome of that review and its applicability to the Armed Forces. It would be premature to prescribe a specific six-week model for the Armed Forces, for example, before the wider review concludes. But the review is expected to conclude in early 2027, which may be of interest to the noble Baroness, so that might start to give us some reassurance about where we are going to with regard to the various points she has raised.
These are extremely important points that need to be heard. But as well as being heard, they need to be acted upon. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that her continued tabling of these amendments and continued challenges to the system to ask what more is going to be done to ensure that people get the entitlements that are needed are important. She will know that when it comes to paternity leave for all eligible personnel within the Armed Forces, there are the concerns about its impact on operational effectiveness. But surely, as we move forward, there ought to be a way of matching the desire for better family arrangements with maintaining the operational effectiveness and particular needs of the Armed Forces. We have to find a way of better balancing all those demands that she quite rightly made through her amendment, and I will certainly do that within the department as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised an important point through her Amendment 67, that is continually made, about the need for subsidised travel for veterans. A number of years ago, there were very few concessions, but gradually, concession after concession was made, quite rightly, with respect to children, family tickets and all those sorts of things. We need to see what more we can do with respect to our Armed Forces and whether there are additional concessions that can be made which will be of benefit to them, to reflect the service they have given. For example, in London there is a veterans Oyster photocard, which entitles people to free travel on a range of transport services, including buses. That demonstrates to us that progress can be made, whether on transport, various family entitlements or the point made by the noble and gallant Lord on the fee waiver for leave to remain. Even to my own Government, I sometimes say, “Can we get a move on?”
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, the Minister answering my question in such a positive way is very encouraging. It certainly made my day—or perhaps I should say it has made my night. I also thank the noble Baronesses and the two noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendment, which I thoroughly accept as very supportive.
Baroness Goldie
“Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights(1) The Human Rights Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) For section 7A (limitation: overseas forces proceedings) substitute—“7A No proceedings for overseas operations(1) No proceedings may be brought under section 7(1)(a) in respect of any overseas operations by His Majesty’s forces.(2) “Overseas operations” means any operations outside the British Islands, including peacekeeping operations and operations for dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, in the course of which members of His Majesty's forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.(3) “His Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).(4) A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed on an overseas operation under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”(3) After section 14 (derogations), insert—“14A Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.(2) In this section “overseas operations” has the same meaning as in section 7A.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, there may be some among your Lordships who looked at this amendment in my name and had a flash of déjà vu. That is because, of course, we have in some manner been here before, except that I was the one facing a grilling from noble Lords, rather than the Minister.
During the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, this House voiced its strong opposition to what was Clause 12 of the Bill, which stated that where the Secretary of State considers an overseas operation to be significant, they must keep under consideration the appropriateness of making a derogation under Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think we generally agree that our country needs our Armed Forces, including the reserves and the cadets, more than ever. We need to encourage people to join, and we need to look after them when they do. We ask them to risk their lives on our behalf. If we do that, we should ensure that they have the appropriate legal protection.
There used to be a common-law principle of so-called combat immunity. That meant that the courts did not get involved in measuring the responsibility for what occurs in the heat of battle. Aggression that may, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen to be excessive should not be analysed, many years later, in the studied calm of a courtroom, with lawyers employing slippery words such as “proportionality”. This is to say nothing of so-called blue-on-blue or friendly-fire incidents, which are inevitable from time to time.
I would not want to give our Armed Forces a free pass legally; they would not want one. The law of armed conflict is necessary and well established. The Geneva conventions and the accumulation of international conventions and treaties are generally described as international humanitarian law, which is generally respected. What worries me, as it does the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is the ECHR and its incorporation into our law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It has brought the law into places where it has no business.
The Strasbourg jurisdiction in this area has become exorbitant. It has held, for example, as the noble Baroness said, that the European—yes, European—Convention on Human Rights applies to theatres of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reference was made to Al-Skeini. There is also a case called Al-Jedda. These cases brought about, among other things, the persecution of our troops by lawyers such as Phil Shiner, a lawyer eventually imprisoned for his deeds but not without causing immense damage expense before his imprisonment. The causation, I fear, is clearly established by the decisions of human rights lawyers to rely on the convention in an inappropriate way.
The rights embodied in the convention are in themselves wholly unexceptionable, but the living instrument approach has meant that judges have approached its application in what might be described as an open-textured way, resulting in real uncertainty as to what our troops are entitled to do legally. Article 2, on the right to life, has, for example, been held to justify a claim against the Ministry of Defence in connection with the supply of Land Rovers: it is the case of Smith v Ministry of Defence.
For some time now, the think tank Policy Exchange has focused on the so-called problems of lawfare. Tom Tugendhat MP, now shadow Foreign Secretary, wrote a paper some time ago, entitled The Fog of Law. It remarked on all these facets, which are causing such a difficulty for our troops.
We have now reached a position where our troops are embarrassed in front of allies, and we are accused by our allies of legal freeloading when lawyers try to explain our legal position. Lawyers are conservative in the advice that they give, if not in their politics. The result is that our troops are vulnerable to legal attack, and their leaders may well become inappropriately circumspect in their approach, in the light of the legal advice that they receive.
The amendment attempts to give our reserves and all our troops proper protection from the incursions of the ECHR. I ask the Minister, for whom we all have great respect, to explain whether the Government consider that the current state of the law is justifiable and whether it is truly in the interests of our servicemen and servicewomen or, indeed, in the public interest.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for their introduction to the amendment and for explaining it in detail. I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for not being able to respond to some of the cases that the noble Lord raised. From these Benches, we have complete sympathy with the principles of sorting out this lawfare issue, because it is clearly a problem.
Having listened particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, our concern is whether, under the terms of Article 15 of the ECHR, even this level of derogation is permissible. She quoted from paragraph 1 of Article 15 but not from paragraph 2, which says:
“No derogation from Article 2”—
the right to life—
“except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7”—
torture, slavery and retrospective criminal penalties—
“shall be made under this provision”.
That paragraph means that it is not possible for the UK to derogate.
I just wondered whether, when the noble Baroness was Minister, there were any discussions with the Council of Europe on this issue, rather than a particular court case. We cannot be the only country affected. It may be that it is particularly bad in the UK. I understand that—not just from Article 15 of the ECHR itself, but from the Government’s independent review of the Human Rights Act in 2021, which referred to the progress of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred to. It is explained that the amendment was withdrawn partly because of the very strong feelings in your Lordships’ House. It referred specifically to this point in Article 15 of the ECHR, and the then Government decided that they could not continue with the amendment. Having asked the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the question, which is perhaps slightly unfair because she is no longer a Minister, I ask the Minister whether any further discussions have been had with the Council of Europe on this problem. As we know, the ECHR is a living document, and if there are issues it is quite probable that the members would agree to some changes—perhaps expanding the level of articles that can be covered by a derogation.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for introducing her amendments, and acknowledge the points she has made. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his contribution to the debate. I say to him that clearly—not only in the context of this Bill but also within a whole range of other Bills, debates and topics—many of the cases that he mentions will be raised. There will be a more extensive debate on a whole range of those issues, and we need them to be discussed.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the Council of Europe, the debate about the ECHR goes on continuously. Whether anyone has raised the specifics of this amendment with it, I am simply unaware.
The ECHR provides for legally enforceable rights within the jurisdiction of the state. In some circumstances, that jurisdiction can extend beyond the territory of the state—namely, extraterritorial jurisdiction. Extraterritorial jurisdiction does not apply uniformly in relation to the various ECHR obligations, and the position has evolved over time through the case law of the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I understand the concerns about how extraterritorial jurisdiction of the ECHR has been interpreted, but I want to make this very important point, which gets to the heart of why this amendment should not be made. Amending the Human Rights Act directly does not change the UK’s international law obligations under the ECHR, to which this Government wish to adhere.
For instance, new Section 7A seeks to restrict the territorial extent of the Human Rights Act in relation to overseas operations. However, Article 13 of the ECHR requires the UK to provide an effective domestic remedy for anyone with an arguable claim that their convention rights have been violated. In other words, if the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act is removed, the UK will still need to ensure that there is a domestic remedy in respect of arguable ECHR breaches occurring in an overseas operation. Additionally, the existence of a domestic remedy separate from that provided for by the Human Rights Act would not prevent the European Court of Human Rights hearing a case where an applicant had exhausted that domestic remedy.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He is right up to a point, in the sense that it is true that, provided we remain a member of the European convention, there is potentially a remedy if there is considered to be a breach of the convention right, at Strasbourg. But we chose, in 1996, to incorporate the convention in our domestic law. What this amendment is doing—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, may correct me if I am wrong—is amending our domestic law to restrict the remedy. Of course, ultimately, it might be possible to go to Strasbourg to pursue a remedy, but what this is concerned with doing is limiting the possibility of anybody relying on a statute passed by this Government—that is, the Human Rights Act—and seeking a remedy in our courts relying on that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the point, very well made, by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—but that is the debate we are having. The argument the Government put forward is that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not prevent the application of the ECHR. That is the point that is being made, and that is the point of difference between us.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
May I simply say this one thing? Until we had the Human Rights Act, we were a member of the European convention. We did not initially even have the right to go to Strasbourg. We then allowed those who wanted to bring an action to go to the Strasbourg court, but it was completely unnecessary. It was thought by the then Government—the Labour Government in fact—to incorporate the convention. So, this is considerably diluting the right, and it is an important difference. The Government may say that we need this right incorporated into our law in the United Kingdom, and that is a different point. If the Minister is simply saying yes, we are a member of the convention, and there is always a right to go to Strasbourg, then I agree with that. But that is not quite what the amendment is focusing on.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government would make both points; I am just speaking to the amendment. If I was not responding to the amendment but putting the whole point around the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, I would say that the Government are proud to have the Human Rights Act, which a Labour Government passed, and the consequent ability to go to the ECHR. However, I am speaking to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has moved. In doing so, we see that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not work as the noble Baroness wants because you can still go to the ECHR. That is the point that I am making.
For example, before derogating, an assessment must be made of whether the circumstances amount to a
“war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”;
whether derogation is necessary; which convention obligations require limitation, noting that some rights are absolute and cannot be departed from; and whether any measures adopted are
“strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”.
These assessments are inherently context specific. By seeking to make derogation mandatory whenever an overseas operation is deemed significant, the amendment risks replacing the individualised assessment that is required by Article 15 with a blanket statutory presumption of derogation. On the basis of this, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I promise the Minister that this is the last intervention that I will make. It is to deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her understanding was that the Government cannot derogate. I understand the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we want to consider the position and whether it is appropriate. However, from what I understand from the Minister, it is accepted that the Government have the right to derogate but they do not want it to be mandatory for it to be exercised in overseas operations because it will be context specific. Is that the position?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In all the time that I have been in this House, that is the first time that I have not understood what the noble Lord means. I have said what I have said and I will leave it there.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I will give it one more go; it is probably my lack of clarity. Do the Government have the right to derogate at all? That was the issue that was being raised; maybe I have misunderstood it. The Minister’s understandable answer is that the Government have the right to derogate but do not feel that this ought to be automatic because they need to consider the circumstances to decide whether it is appropriate to derogate.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government can make the laws and derogate should they wish to do so. I have pointed out the inconsistency of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gouldie, which would require us to derogate from the Human Rights Act but would not achieve her objective because it still leaves us liable to the ECHR, which would allow people to pursue it in that way.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I think that the Minister understands fully what it is like to be grilled at the Dispatch Box in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his elucidation of the legal aspects of this. It is complex. There are interwoven components. I was following his interrogation of the Minister with a rather selfish interest as the Minister nobly endeavoured to respond. I am intrigued by what is emerging. I gleaned from the contributions that there is a subject here that merits debate. The conundrum is that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has articulated what the problem is, particularly for our troops in conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that there is a problem; there is. The Minister himself conceded that this whole issue needs a more extensive debate.
Herein lies the conundrum. We all, I think, now recognise it as a problem and acknowledge that, however we have arrived this situation, the combined effect of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act is creating a challenge for our troops in conflict, which, in 2026, is a much more foreseeable prospect than perhaps it was even five years ago. I am encouraged that there seems to be a willingness to engage in this debate. This is a serious matter; I suggest to the Minister that it is not one about which either his department or his colleagues can remain passive or inert.
I am very grateful to all who have contributed, and I appreciate the Minister’s response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
“Impersonation of service police(1) Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 (impersonation, etc.) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “force” insert “including service police”.(3) In subsection (2), after “force” insert “including service police”.(4) In subsection (3), after “force” insert “including service police”.(5) In subsection (4), at end insert—“(c) “service police” has the same meaning as in section 375 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (definitions relating to the service police and other police forces).””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to amend section 90 of the Police Act 1996 to make impersonating a service police officer a specific offence and afford service police the same protections against impersonation given to their civilian counterparts.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, in moving Amendment 59, I will also speak to Amendment 60 in my name; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their support. I declare an interest as the father of a soldier.
The amendments that I am proposing aim to give the same protections to service police in the conduct of their duties as those afforded to their civilian counterparts. Amendment 59 would include service police in the offence of impersonating a police officer in the Police Act 1996. Amendment 60 would give service police the status of “emergency worker” within the meaning in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Both amendments are structured to amend the existing civilian criminal legislation, rather than to create additional service offences. The purpose of this is to ensure that these protections apply to both military and civilian offenders.
Service police operate both behind the wire and on the streets of Britain, where they respond to incidents involving both the military and civilians. They police high-profile events such as significant military funerals, large-scale ceremonial occasions and, for example, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, as well as Friday nights in garrison towns, when things can get quite lively. They do not have a choice as to what incidents they come across on their patrol and must be prepared to act, including using lawful force, to prevent crime and harm to others, no matter who is involved. This inevitably puts service police at risk of being assaulted when on duty.
Few service police officers know colleagues, if not themselves, who have not been assaulted while on duty. Currently, if a member of the service police is assaulted on duty, there are none of the enhanced sentencing powers afforded through the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which would be used if a civilian police officer had a similar assault. Service police are asked to face similar risks as civilian police and other emergency workers, yet they are not protected in the same way. That strikes me as unjust.
Amendment 60 would add service police to the definition of “emergency worker”. The adoption of this amendment would act as a deterrent against assaulting service police, and, where assaults do occur, would give enhanced sentencing powers to deal with offenders to the same standard as if the assault were against a civilian police officer.
Similarly, Amendment 59 aims to give service police protection against impersonation by both military personnel and civilians. At present, it is not a specific offence to impersonate a service police officer. Service personnel who do so are currently prosecuted under the military offence of “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline”, while there is no equivalent legislation to deal with civilians who impersonate service police officers.
For both military and civilian offenders, this is a gap in legislation that could allow—and does allow—for the abuse of service police powers by impersonation without appropriate consequences. In recent years, offenders have avoided prosecution due to this gap in legislation, which I believe needs to be closed through an amendment to the civilian criminal legislation in the Police Act 1996, rather than through additional service offences. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, to which I have appended my name. As the right reverend Prelate rightly pointed out, there are disparities in the provisions for service police versus civilian police, which seems wholly wrong. For the reason of expediting business this evening, I do not propose to speak any longer other than to say that we on these Benches wholly support these amendments.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I, too, have signed both of the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich because I believe that they have identified two important gaps in the law.
Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 creates the offence of impersonating
“a member of a police force or special constable”.
The Act is concerned with civilian police forces in England and Wales established under it and related legislation. The definition of “special constable” is limited to one appointed for a police area. Members of the service police forces are not members of the territorial police force and are not special constables; they are members of the service police under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As a result, the person pretending to be a service police officer would not obviously fall under the wording
“members of a police force or special constable”
in Section 90. I believe that this is clearly an omission and needs to be rectified.
On Amendment 60, I believe that I am correct in saying that the definition in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 could include service police officers. Subsection 1(b) states that
“a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes”
is included within that definition. Service police officers are clearly engaged to provide services for police purposes; it might be useful for the Minister to confirm whether that is the Government’s position.
However, more importantly, that Act applies only to England and Wales, not to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland has a corresponding law: the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which creates specific offences of assaulting, obstructing or hindering emergency workers and those assisting them. The protected categories include constables, fire and ambulance personnel, and, in certain circumstances, prison officers, coastguard personnel, RNLI crews, social workers executing child protection orders and mental health officers. Like the English and Welsh equivalent, the Scottish Act does not expressly mention service police officers. However, service police can sometimes be treated as constables when exercising powers conferred by service law or civilian legislation. Whether the 2005 Act applies to a particular service police officer will depend on the precise capacity in which they were acting at the time, thus the position regarding service police is not clear.
Northern Ireland does not have a direct equivalent of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 that creates a single overarching offence of assaulting emergency workers. Instead, it has a mixture of general assault offences and occupation-specific offences. A member of the Royal Military Police, Royal Navy Police or Royal Air Force Police would not automatically fall under any general “emergency worker” definition in Northern Ireland because there is no equivalent statutory definition. The problem here is that the service police work across the United Kingdom, so the differential treatment under the law of the different jurisdictions causes confusion and uncertainty.
This, coupled with the fact that service police officers are not expressly covered by the relevant treaties of legislation, means that service police are not treated as equivalent to civilian police. I think that this requires some thought from the Government; I welcome an opinion on these matters from the Minister.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have had a number of conversations with him about this outside the Chamber. I have asked my officials to look at his Amendment 59, with respect to the impersonation of a member of the service police, and at Amendment 60, which would add service police to the list of emergency workers regarding assault. I will take those forward but to be clear, I cannot promise what the outcome will be. I personally think there is a problem with these two issues, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with him to see whether we can come forward with something at Report to plug what appear to be two gaps in the legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her brevity at this late hour when many of us want to be tucked up in bed. It was worth staying up to hear the analysis of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. That was particularly helpful regarding the different jurisdictions around these islands, especially the potential for amending laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for all his hard work on this Bill and for giving the commitment that he has to your Lordships’ House to look at this in further detail. My understanding is that the Service Protection Authority has given legal advice that it does not believe that service police fall under the definition of emergency workers. That is all part of the conversation to go on as this Bill progresses towards Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the first three amendments in my name, which are in group 12: Amendments 61, 62 and 63. I am not going to do them justice at this time of night, because the first amendment is calling for an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention and in order to do that justice, I need to rehearse the difficulties we have seen in Armed Forces recruitment. Capita was mentioned earlier in proceedings today. Issues of retention have also been raised.
Given the lateness of the hour and the hope that noble Lords, Hansard, doorkeepers and officials in the box will get home at some point in the wee small hours, I will simply express the view that it is important for His Majesty’s Government to have an independent review of recruitment and retention. Each time there is an SDR, we hear that we need to look at the size of our Armed Forces and the size of the reserves, yet there is very little clarity on the recruitment process and retention. We have heard proposals this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about increasing paternity leave entitlement precisely as a way of enhancing retention. The country needs clarity on recruitment and retention. As Parliament, we need to be able to scrutinise the current provisions and perhaps give suggestions to His Majesty’s Government about ways in which we could be improving the system. I am raising that issue, but I am not going to go into any further detail this evening.
I hope that Amendment 62 will be seen as uncontroversial, even by someone sitting where the Minister is—even though it is an amendment. It suggests a duty to provide medical records on discharge, simply to ensure that anyone leaving the services is able to go straight away to register with their GP. In particular, if they have issues—perhaps they had a medical discharge or, even if not, they might be at risk of undiagnosed PTSD—then having those medical records will be crucial for them, and it seems only right that their record should be provided as soon as practicable.
Amendment 63 ought to be self-evident, although I realise that the Minister may feel that it is not purely an MoD matter but is perhaps more for the DWP. It would insert a clause introducing a personal independence payment assessment exemption for amputees. The logic is that it seems odd to keep requiring PIP assessments and reassessments when, if someone has had a limb amputated, that is not going to change between assessments. It may be that robotics or other medical innovations change someone’s capacity to work; but given that we are talking about someone who may have had a limb amputated as a result of their service, relieving them of PIP reassessments would appear to be a more appropriate way of acknowledging the reasons why they have lost the limb, while ensuring that we do not put them through unnecessary repeat medical assessments. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I support Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, requiring an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention. At this late hour, I will just say that, at a time when there are nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, we cannot even recruit 10,000 a year, and our Armed Forces are well below the relatively tiny strength at which they are funded to be. This suggests that something is seriously wrong with the recruiting process, and the report needs to be done.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I shall briefly speak to Amendment 62. My noble friend raised the point about it being important for veterans to be able to have their details in their hands. The NHS guidance for veterans specifically notes that it takes several months for the full records to follow the veterans, and if veterans have complex health issues but no information, the GPs that they see are in deep trouble.
On amputees, importantly, unlike many amputees in the civilian world, most amputees in the military world also have a significant number of other injuries. There is already an issue about amputees in the civilian world having to have repeat PIP tests, but it seems sensible to look at this area.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
Briefly, my Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has raised some important issues in these amendments. Between 1999 and 2025 there were only seven years in which more people joined the regular forces than left them, and the strategic defence review was blunt enough to call the result a workforce crisis.
I might add one further point on retention. Retention in the Armed Forces will not be improved by prosecuting veterans who served in Northern Ireland fighting the IRA. My noble friend Lady Goldie has already mentioned the adverse impact that the Government’s policy is having. Retention will also surely be improved by delivering the investment in the forces housing that the Government have promised. These are two actions that the Government could take immediately to improve retention and recruitment: drop the widely despised Troubles Bill and deliver the housing investment now, rather than pushing the funding further back, as they have done in the defence investment plan.
I completely concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about medical records. That needs tidying up pretty quickly and would definitely help. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, let me just say this: none of us is going to do justice to the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has brought forward. She made a couple of important points, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I also need to respond in positively to some of what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said; on other points, perhaps not. The important thing is that, to do this justice, I need to write a letter which looks at some of the issues raised on retention, at the transfer of health records and at the point that was made on PIP. They are important points and for me to say just two sentences on this and two sentences on that would be inadequate. With the Committee’s permission I will write a letter, copy it to Members of the Committee and place a copy in the Library. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who cosigned Amendment 61, and my noble friend Lady Brinton. We look forward to the letter from the Minister and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan(1) Every six months after the day on which this Act is passed for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan. (2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this very small group, unfortunately numbered group 13, is about the defence investment plan. In particular, it felt appropriate to bring forward amendments that had been laid in the other place by my honourable friends; I think it was James MacCleary who tabled them. Essentially, they suggest that Parliament has an interest in ensuring that we hold His Majesty’s Government accountable on the defence investment plan.
In particular, I noted that, in his earlier response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the Minister said that continued challenges are important. I suggest that Amendment 64 is by way of a continued challenge: that it would be beneficial to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and to the country to have a report on the defence investment plan. Clearly, this is not something where one needs the Minister to respond in any detail today, because we are calling for it to be six months after this Act has been passed. The key thing is that the defence investment plan took a long time. It is still unclear whether the funding will be forthcoming, so accountability and scrutiny seem appropriate.
The final amendment, Amendment 65, calls for a
“Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays”.
The suggestion here, or the request, is that we have a report within six months of the Act being passed. Again, this is very much about accountability. The defence investment plan was hugely important; it was also significantly delayed. Even for the primes the delays have been significant, but for the smaller defence companies, particularly dual-use companies, there are significant questions about the impact of the delays. Therefore, we have specified clearly what we would want to see in a report.
I do not think I need to go into any more detail, other than to ask the Minister whether the Government might indeed provide the reports—in particular, the annual reports requested in Amendment 64, because earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out on another part of the Bill that there is no greater accountability than an annual report to Parliament. Please may we have one? I beg to move.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, is once again highlighting an issue that we have spent a significant amount of time debating in your Lordships’ House. The glaring hole in the funding of the DIP has to be addressed. The funding issues have not yet been resolved. Can the Minister please confirm that his former boss, now the Chancellor, will find the necessary funds in the upcoming Budget to fill that budgetary hole? Further, we have also recently heard that the Government will not set out the plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence spending until the spending review next year, so another six months of preparation will be lost—another six months of stasis. It is not acceptable. I hope that the Government rethink.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will finish with an upbeat message: I have never felt that I have lacked scrutiny on the defence investment plan or on accountability with respect to defence spending. I have answered numerous questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I have not felt at all that there has been a lack of scrutiny. That is as it should be, so I am perfectly happy to stand here. The amendments are completely unnecessary in terms of holding me and the Government to account. The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and most Members of this House find it extraordinarily easy to bring me to this Dispatch Box to tell me how bad the Government are, and to get me to say how hard I am working to ensure that we deliver the defence that this country needs. These amendments are completely unnecessary; there is absolutely no need for them. At this late hour, that is my answer to the noble Baroness’s amendments.
I have a couple of serious points. On the annual report, in the DIP we have committed to an annual update to Parliament before the Summer Recess each year on progress against the DIP and any changes to financial investments. The first report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about, will be audited by the National Audit Office and published by July 2027. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto—I have a fresh burst of energy now—that, unlike when we were talking about the establishment of the national reserve forces and cadets associations, where the noble Earl did not take too much notice of what the National Audit Office said because it did not fit his argument, if the National Audit Office comes forward and says that the Government’s defence investment plan is not going according to plan and that what the Government are doing is an outrage, I bet that the noble Earl will quote that report at length. That is the nature of politics; I understand that. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the first annual report will be published by July 2027.
Finally, the Chancellor will lay out in the Autumn Budget how the remaining £4.7 billion announced in the DIP will be found. Noble Lords will also have heard the Chancellor say that further plans will be set out in the 2027 spending review. I will finish with this: I do not know why it is a surprise to everyone in this Committee that that was said, because, if they check Hansard, they will see that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and said exactly the same thing in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on a number of different occasions. With that, I hope the noble Baroness sees fit to withdraw her amendment. If not, she should bring it back on Report so that we can have another debate on defence spending.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his support in challenging His Majesty’s Government and to the Minister for his ever-ready presence to respond at the Dispatch Box. We may well come back to the impact of DIP delays, particularly in terms of supply chains, because there are some very significant issues there, but whether they are appropriate for an amendment to this particular Bill is another question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.