House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin, I know that the thoughts of the House today will be with Helen Haines, the Member of Parliament for Indi in the Australian House of Representatives who has been critically injured following an incident outside her electoral office. The safety and security of elected officials is crucial, and must remain a focus for us all. My thoughts are with Helen, her family and our Australian colleagues and friends. On behalf of the House, I have written to the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, Speaker Milton Dick, to express our sympathies.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I absolutely endorse your comments about our colleague, Mr Speaker.
I know that my hon. Friend and many other colleagues are deeply concerned about the issues at Northern Care Alliance. As of June this year, the trust has been placed under the highest level of regional oversight and support from NHS England. It is imperative that rapid movements are made, governance systems are strengthened and that every patient receives the standard of care that they deserve.
Mrs Blundell
My constituents are very concerned about Northern Care Alliance hospitals. Across the trust, there were 10 serious incidents between 2025 and 2026 that were found to be wholly preventable, lengthy delays causing severe harm to patients and industrial action, culminating in a sustained decline in performance and national rankings on patient safety. What options are therefore on the table if the trust does not show urgent signs of improvement?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend rightly highlights on behalf of her constituents the number of issues that have led to this significant regulatory intervention and support. If necessary, further action is available to NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. We want to ensure that the focus now is on supporting and challenging the trust to make the rapid and sustained improvements necessary in those key areas. I know that my hon. Friend and our other colleagues will work closely with the trust on this; I always encourage MPs to work closely with their trust to ensure that that happens. If necessary, other measures will also be available.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
I also join in your words in support of Helen Haines, Mr Speaker.
In the wake of the horrific cases we have seen in Hull, Leeds, Kent and elsewhere, the Government have announced that we will bring forward comprehensive proposals to ensure respect and dignity for the deceased in every setting, including proper regulation of the funeral sector, because everyone deserves dignity in death and every bereaved family deserves certainty that their loved one is being treated with care and respect.
Rachael Maskell
This question comes with warnings of distressing content. When people die, we expect the deceased to receive the highest level of dignity prior to interment, but the lack of statutory regulation is resulting in a few engaging in poor practice. The Co-op funeral service and independent providers have raised significant concerns of a new model of low-cost cremations and mass storage facilities—as proposed by a new establishment in York, which could store 700 people—with evidence of poor practice, poor care and poor handling of the deceased within these facilities. Will the Government meet me and funeral directors so that we can prevent the York site from operating and set high regulatory standards for services for the deceased?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter; Ministers will certainly be happy to meet her and her constituents on it. I am aware of and concerned about the issues she raises, and I do not think that families are being given the full information about some of these practices and provisions. This goes to the heart of why we need new regulation arrangements in place, so that everyone can have the confidence that their loved ones are being shown the respect and care that all of us would want for our families.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
Any regulation of the funeral sector must avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on small, local providers. How will the Department ensure that any proposed regulatory framework is proportionate and does not unfairly increase costs for independent funeral directors across my constituency and the country?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member raises an important issue. It is vital that we get this right, which is why we are currently holding consultations and discussions across the funeral sector. We know that there are funeral providers across the country that do an incredibly caring and compassionate job looking after families at the most difficult time; we are working with them, and we will update the House in due course. This is why we have established the principle of regulation, but getting the practice right, working with the sector, is very important.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
The Government are determined to give every child the best start in life. We will appoint an independent maternity and neonatal commissioner and publish an action plan covering every area identified for improvement from pregnancy to post-natal care. We will also go further, rolling out Sure Start health services for parents and babies into every family centre across the country, reaching up to 1,000 family hubs over the next two years.
Rosie Wrighting
The maternity ward at Kettering general hospital faces significant challenges such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, overheating during the summer and flooding during the winter. We urgently need to see the maternity ward rebuilt and the money raised by families for a bereavement suite put towards a safe space for families in the most difficult of times. I thank the Secretary of State for all the work she has done on national maternity services. Will she meet me to discuss those specific challenges and ensure that my constituents get the maternity service they deserve?
Yvette Cooper
I will happily meet my hon. Friend to talk about maternity services. I pay tribute to her as well, because she has been a tireless campaigner for improving maternity services and, in particular, bereavement suites for families at the most sensitive times. I also pay tribute to all the families in her constituency who have been involved in those campaigns. Work is under way for a new maternity and neonatal facility in Kettering general, which will include a bereavement suite. We want to work with the hospital and the community on that.
Tom Hayes
A new report by the Centre for Young Lives advocates putting health at the heart of every childhood, including putting Best Starts, Healthy Babies and remaining children’s centres on a statutory footing. Given that health services have structural advantages in providing capital management and getting new services up and running, what greater role can health services play in integrating services at Sure Start level?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. Having been responsible for the roll-out of the original Sure Start programme, I am still angry with Conservative Members who supported the closures of Sure Starts across the country. We are now restoring health services and the Healthy Babies programme to family hubs across the country, because health interventions from the work of midwives and health visitors and work on post-natal depression is crucial to the start of a child’s life. I hope that this time round we will have cross-party consensus as we expand those services.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The chief executive of NHS England and I toured the John Radcliffe’s maternity unit this summer. The building is in a dire state: women give birth in rooms with no windows and no toilets—and where there are toilets, they often flood. In fact, Valerie Amos said that it was the worst she had seen as part of her review. The trust leaders are clear with us that they want a new maternity unit. May I invite the Secretary of State to come to Oxford and see for herself? If she has not got the time for that, will she at least have a meeting with me and the trust leaders so that we can discuss how we can move the project forward?
Yvette Cooper
I will happily meet the hon. Member. I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its work on maternity services. Clearly, some of the issues are about capital investment, and we are substantially increasing that to improve the safety of units and facilities, including maternity units. We also want to see higher standards of care not just in labour wards and maternity units but throughout pregnancy. I am happy to meet her to talk about those services.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
On maternity, two things will stick with me. First, there was the briefing from Donna Ockenden on her report, which was shocking. The other was listening to bereaved mums saying how they are tired of telling their story over and over again, and I hope we can find a better service for those parents; equally, there was the treatment of dead babies in the mortuary in Nottingham. Will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to ensure that those shocking things never happen to any family ever again?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the right hon. Member’s points. I know that he has championed those issues both on maternity care and on bereavement. Like him, I have also spoken to some of the bereaved families from Leeds, where the Ockenden review is under way.
The issues that the right hon. Member raised about babies and mortuary services, as well as funeral services for babies, show the importance of the broader response to the Fuller inquiry and the regulation of funeral services more broadly. We do need to take action. I am happy to discuss that with him further.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
This week, Matthew Hopkins, who, until November 2025, was the chief executive of one of the worst performing hospital trusts in the country and is now the acute and ambulance network director of NHS Alliance, was reported to have said that the closure of at least 20 rural maternity units was “inevitable” and the “right thing”. In North Devon, we have seen the impact that closures have on women in labour, who have faced an hour and half of driving on country lanes with many turning round to give birth in A&E—a sign of the national maternity crisis being out of control. Rather than agreeing to closures, will the Secretary of State review how we staff rural maternity services to improve safety and protect women, and will she meet me and rural Liberal Democrat MPs who are fighting to protect mums and families?
Yvette Cooper
The work that we have done since the election has significantly increased the number of midwives across the country, which we rightly need to do. I have also been clear to the NHS chief executive that the NHS, regionally and nationally, needs to do everything possible to help reopen North Devon maternity services. I know that work is under way on trying to increase recruitment and support local recruitment. There is a broader issue about ensuring, particularly in more rural areas, that proper recruitment and maternity workforce plans are in place. We need to ensure, and mums need to know, that the services are there for them when they need them, including at the time they go into labour. That will be part of the approach that we are taking to maternity services.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
We now have the highest number of fully qualified GPs since 2015, and almost 16 million more GP appointments were delivered in the last year than in the 12 months before the election. As a result of that investment, 77% of people now say that they have a good local service. We know that there is more to do, especially in rural and remote areas, but there is clear progress against our 10-year plan.
Alan Mak
Vital NHS services, including scans and X-rays, have been removed from Oak Park clinic, which serves every resident in the Havant constituency. Will the Minister meet me and support my campaign to restore those vital services so that my constituents do not have to travel to Portsmouth or further afield?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have looked at the issue around Oak Park community clinic and I know that he has met the integrated care board. I am told that all options are being considered to provide a sustainable and accessible solution for diagnostics at the Oak Park site, but I am happy to meet him.
Fleur Anderson
I am concerned about NHS England’s GP list cleaning programme and its impact on London specifically. Putney GPs have told me that in the last six months, 344,000 patients have been taken off GP lists, 44% of whom are in London. Some are taken off after not responding to a single letter. That means that they do not get cancer check-ups, vaccines or GP care. Something is going on with the London part of the GP lists. Will the Minister pause, review the programme, look into it and meet me and other London MPs to talk about it?
Dame Diana Johnson
I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly with regard to vulnerable patients, but it is important that GP lists are as accurate as possible. We think that there are around 6 million more registrations than England’s population and most people flagged are confirmed to have moved abroad. Strong safeguards are in place, including no patient being removed on the basis of a single indicator or because they failed to respond to one piece of correspondence. Overall, it takes more than five months from identifying a patient who may no longer reside to deregistering them from a practice system. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One thing that hinders access to and the effectiveness of primary care is Labour’s mandatory use of single point of access—so much so that a safety watchdog has linked it to deaths. After those on the Government Front Bench dismissed the concerns raised by Conservatives, it turns out that an investigation has been set forward, with the NHS Strategy Unit asked to look at the matter. Will the Minister set out the terms of reference that the Strategy Unit is using, the timeframe and when this House can expect to hear the answers to ensure this is done safely?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this. He will appreciate that I am relatively new in post, but I am going to find out and I will write to him with the specific answers to the questions he has posed today.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Constituents in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Wharncliffe Side and Oughtibridge regularly tell me how important it is for them to have access closer to home to routine blood tests, X-rays, special educational needs and disability support, mental health support, NHS dentistry and mammograms, because of the poor transport links and delays in accessing NHS diagnostic services in Sheffield. Therefore, I was delighted to welcome Stocksbridge towns fund board members, local health leaders and experts to visit the 519 community hub site in our town. Will the Minister meet me to discuss our proposal for a community diagnostic centre in the new 519 building, to maximise its benefit to our community—mirroring the excellent Glass Works and Alhambra centre facilities in Barnsley—and to bring health to our high streets locally?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her local area and for ensuring that we have services close to populations and close to where people live. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
We commissioned the independent Fonagy review, which made it clear that mental distress has increased for young people and particularly young women. That is why we have already improved mental health support in schools for young people, and we will publish a new mental health strategy by Christmas.
Dr Opher
As the Minister knows, over 1 million young people are currently on the mental health waiting list. In Stroud, and in the South Bank centre, I am working with clinical teams and creative teams to offer early intervention to these young people, with social prescriptions for music, art, access to nature and exercise, and indeed stand-up comedy. Following the Fonagy review, which recommends support in the community with lower-level clinical services and on an earlier basis, does she support those initiatives, and may I meet her to discuss them?
Alison McGovern
Of course my hon. Friend can meet me to discuss stand-up comedy—I would like nothing more. Clinical services are important. We are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest waits for children and young people, and we have had a 14% decrease, but good mental health for young people goes way beyond that. My hon. Friend knows that I love art, sport and culture as much as he does.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The new Weybridge health centre in my constituency, which is being rebuilt following the fire in 2017, was planned to provide a range of general services. When I visited it recently, I learned that the first floor still does not have tenants in place. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the Phoenix family practice to discuss how we can ensure that Weybridge gets the best possible broad healthcare provision?
Alison McGovern
As you know, Mr Speaker, I always meet any Member who asks me to, but it may be that another Minister would be more relevant for the hon. Member’s health centre. We will check that and ensure he has the right meeting, because it sounds like a great community resource.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I start by associating myself with your remarks on the tragic events involving Helen Haines over the last 24 hours?
According to a recent report from Future Minds, more than 2.7 million referrals have been made since the last election to children’s and young people’s mental health services in England, with more than a third of those referred still awaiting treatment. How can the Government seriously claim to be tackling the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training while simultaneously overseeing the waiting list run out of control?
Alison McGovern
I refer the shadow Minister to the Fonagy review. It details the causes, which started before covid, of the rise in mental distress for young people. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest wait, and we have seen some successes with that, but we have way more to do to address this challenge. We will have more to say in the mental health strategy that will be published soon.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her campaigning on diethylstilbesterol and to her constituent Jan Hall and her family. We recognise the serious intergenerational effects of exposure to DES, including increased cancer risks and reproductive complications, and we have asked NHS England and clinical networks to improve awareness of those issues and the people affected by them. We have commissioned an evidence review of the intergenerational effects of DES, which will inform our efforts to strengthen support in this area.
Jessica Toale
I thank the Minister for her answer and the constructive way in which the Department of Health and Social Care has engaged with me and campaigners from DES Justice UK, but I am still meeting women who are being denied breast cancer screening, colposcopies and other things that are essential for their care, despite the letter from the cancer alliance about DES exposure risk. How can we ensure that GPs and other health professionals are truly aware of the risks of DES, and that the women who need the support can get it when they need it?
Dame Diana Johnson
I recognise that some women exposed to DES still face difficulties accessing advice, monitoring and referral. Clinicians should consider individual medical histories, symptoms and risk factors. I had a look at the letter that was sent on 12 December explaining what more should be done by clinicians. I will again ask officials to look at whether we need to reissue that letter or whether we need to take any other action to ensure that the information about DES is spread as widely as possible among clinicians.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am pleased that the Minister is talking about ensuring that medical professionals are more aware of DES and the risks for those who were potentially exposed to it, but what is her assessment of the feasibility of tracking and informing those who were potentially exposed? My constituent Heather did not realise that she—or her mother—had been exposed until long after her mother’s death.
Dame Diana Johnson
As I just said, the Government are improving identification and support for people affected by DES by raising awareness among clinicians and strengthening the dissemination of existing NHS guidance. There are considerable challenges associated with recalling records from the 1940s to the 1970s, particularly because of the record-keeping practices of that era and the fact that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had not yet been established at that time, but I am mindful of the point that the hon. Member makes.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of intermediate care, which is a key component of supporting patients into discharge to recover outside of hospitals. Community beds play an important role, but we are clear that home-based intermediate care also needs support, particularly for frail people, through neighbourhood health. That should be the default pathway, and we will continue to work with the system to make that happen.
Dr Rushworth
Ward 7 at Bishop Auckland hospital is an example of the NHS working—physios, nurses, healthcare workers and some excellent facilities—so we were shocked to hear that our local NHS trust plans to close the ward, move it to Darlington and break up that team. Will the Minister meet me so I can represent my constituents and the workers at that hospital, and raise those concerns with her face to face?
Karin Smyth
I am, of course, happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue further. I am clear that all changes to services should be based on clear evidence that they deliver better outcomes for his constituents and people across the country. He is absolutely right that we want to extend care closer to home. As I said, the default is to get more care into people’s homes, and I am happy to discuss that further with him.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Our community hospital in Fleet is doing a brilliant job, but it could be a much more established resource for local people, especially given the delays in rebuilding our local hospitals. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make the best use of community hospitals in North East Hampshire while we wait another two decades for the rebuild of Basingstoke hospital?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady is right that we absolutely want to get more care closer to people’s homes and into people’s homes. We want to support frail people in their homes before they even get into hospital. I am working with the integrated care board to make sure that all that happens. I am happy to discuss that further with her.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Step-down beds in community hospitals, such as the Chase community hospital and Haslemere hospital in my constituency, are vital. Unfortunately, neither of those two hospitals is being used for that purpose at the moment. At the same time, delayed discharges have hit an all-time high under this Government. More than 14,000 patients a day are stuck in hospital for two weeks or more after being declared fit to leave—that is up 12% since July last year. Behind every one of those numbers is someone who wants to be at home and an acute bed that another patient desperately needs. Why are the Government failing so abysmally at getting people out of hospital and into care at home?
Karin Smyth
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation deteriorated massively under the 14 years of Conservative government. He is well aware of the fragmentation of all our services. He knows how the system was fragmented and what happened under those reforms. He knows that is why we are trying to change it. He is absolutely right, though, that people being in beds in hospitals or in parts of the system where they should not be is not good for their health or their outcomes. That is why it is part of our three shifts, and that is fundamentally why the Prime Minister is very clear that we will raise social care up the agenda and ensure that people are treated more in their homes and in community services where they live. I welcome his support for our shift to neighbourhood care and to better care closer to home.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
This Government have been working to rebuild the NHS dental service since we came to office. The latest data shows that 37.6 million courses of dental treatment were delivered last year—nearly 3 million more than at the time of the general election.
David Reed
Access to NHS dentistry is a major problem in my constituency, with 86% of the respondents to my dentistry survey being unable to access one. Some told me that they still travel back to their old NHS dentist after moving home and, in one case, someone took a trip of more than 130 miles because no local practice would take them as a patient. Unlike GP surgeries, NHS dentists have no catchment areas. Will the Minister please look at whether that is making it harder for local people to get an appointment?
Mr Frith
The hon. Member raises an important point—that is a theme in the work I am doing. Last year, 81% of those who wanted to get an NHS dentist were able to, but I recognise that too often people have to have an existing relationship with an NHS dentist to access that. Since the general election, the Government’s effort to tackle dental deserts has seen us ringfence £4 billion for NHS dentistry. Huge amounts have been done, but there is even more to do, and he has the Government’s and my attention on this matter.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Since being elected, I have campaigned for a new dental school in the east of England. I thank the Government for backing that at the University of East Anglia with 25 new funded places. However, Norfolk is still a dental desert where people struggle to get an appointment. I have just returned from maternity leave and I could not get one when I was pregnant, and I am not alone in that, pregnant or otherwise. Can the Minister set out what the Government will do to ensure that constituents can get a dental appointment, and give a timetable for the reform of the dentistry contract?
Mr Frith
I thank my hon. Friend and welcome her back from maternity leave—what a time that is. I know that she has been campaigning relentlessly on the issue of dental schools, but also on addressing the dental deserts that we speak about so frequently. The east of England and south-east dental schools are incoming and will start to take on new students in September 2027. I look forward to their playing a part in strengthening dental provision locally.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
We want every cancer patient to benefit from high-quality radiotherapy regardless of where they live. There has always been a need to balance the objective of providing care closer to each person’s home with the imperative of maintaining access to the specialist expertise and technology needed for safe, effective treatment.
Tim Farron
In south Cumbria, only 29% of cancer patients get radiotherapy. That is the lowest proportion in the country, and only 27% of them get that treatment within the 62-day target. That is all because my constituents have to travel to the excellent but far-too-distant Rosemere cancer unit at Preston, which involves daily gruelling round trips of up to four hours for weeks on end, effectively excluding many from treatment. This awful, unequal access costs lives. Will the Minister set out a plan for delivering new satellite radiotherapy units in areas such as mine, and will he meet me and our local hospital’s trust to help us to deliver our long overdue radiotherapy satellite unit at Kendal?
Mr Frith
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about this matter. A theme is developing of the demands on treatment in rural and coastal communities, where people are expected to travel further, particularly those facing radiotherapy. It is the responsibility of ICBs, supported by our national guidance, to strike the balance that I spoke of between population needs, geography and inequalities. I understand that there have been recent exchanges between him and his ICB. I am happy to have a conversation with him about that and to lean into what options are available hereafter.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Under this Government 250,000 people are being diagnosed within 28 days, which we should welcome, but we must recognise that there is more to be done. This morning I met representatives of Prostate Cancer UK. In fact, I played football against them—
Chris Vince
That is true, although we did win. They made the point that so many men in this country are still dying of prostate cancer because they are not coming forward soon enough, and we know that the impact is even greater on the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. What can the Government do to support wonderful charities such as Prostate Cancer UK to cut the number of men dying of prostate cancer?
Mr Frith
It is an honour to have the opportunity to respond to the champion for Harlow. It also presents me with the opportunity to make clear that, contrary to reports over the summer, should men suspect that they have symptoms, they can go to their GP and seek a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—test for prostate cancer. This is the first Government to launch a men’s health strategy, and there is more information to come. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House who have a strong record on this matter.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
One of the reasons the Government committed to bring back the family doctor was the importance of maintaining continuity of care for patients. I am pleased to say that the proportion of patients who say they are able to see their preferred clinician when they make a GP appointment has risen from 61% to 68% since the election, but we recognise that there is more to do, and this remains an important priority for the Government.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
Has the Minister read the Norwegian population study published in the British Journal of General Practice, which says that people who see the same doctor over many years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need emergency care and 25% less likely to die? It has been two years since the Government made the pledge to bring back the family doctor, but the basic structure of general practice has not changed. Can we see some changes in the next GP contract negotiations to bring back the system we used to have, in which everyone has their own doctor?
Dame Diana Johnson
I recognise the enormous experience and knowledge of the former Secretary of State for Health and his work on this issue and patient safety more generally. The Department has started to look at expert advice, with a clinical working group, on how best to support continuity of care in modern general practice. I have not read the report that he referred to, but I am happy to go and have a look it. I am also happy to have a discussion with him, because it would be helpful to understand his thinking on what I know he considers to be a very important issue.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Continuity of care in maternity services is based on women building relationships with maternity practitioners who meet them where they are. I would like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan): many obstetricians and midwives have been truly disappointed at comments from an NHS leader yesterday, who argued that more maternity units should be shut and that only consolidation of services can make births safer. Women in this country will not accept the industrialisation of our bodies. This Labour Government have promised neighbourhood and preventive healthcare, which has to include allowing new mums to feel rooted in the communities where they will go through their biggest physical and psychological change. Can the Minister assure me that our bodies will not be treated like a manufacturing supply chain to be optimised as she develops the asks for maternity services in this country?
Dame Diana Johnson
Gosh, my hon. Friend made a very passionate statement there, and I absolutely agree with what she said. This work will be undertaken with the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we will look at all these issues. I hope my hon. Friend will feel able to contribute to that work if she wishes to.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Continuity of care is desirable but not always possible, and in circumstances where it is not, a single patient record offers an opportunity to improve care, but it also brings the risk of unauthorised access to notes. We have seen recent high-profile cases where notes have been accessed that should not have been. That has led to people across the country worrying that this issue could affect them personally in less high-profile cases and about what will happen when the single patient record will be available nationally. How are the Government going to protect patient confidentiality?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a struggle to get from the original question to where we are, but the Minister is happy to answer.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will be mindful of your comment, Mr Speaker. What happened recently is totally unacceptable, and the Secretary of State has made that clear. My understanding is that those individuals who have accessed information about patients, and had no businesses to access it, have been suspended. Disciplinary action will follow, possibly with dismissals. Such actions are totally unacceptable.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Another issue that affects continuity of care is when patients remain in the emergency department for prolonged periods after a decision is made to admit them to a ward. That has gone up by over a third since the general election. Can the Government say why?
Dame Diana Johnson
Times in A&E are being speeded up. The hon. Lady speaks with experience because she is a clinician, and I am happy to go away and look at that issue and write to her if there is information we need to let her have. My understanding is that we are speeding things up in A&E, and getting people through and on to the ward as quickly as possible.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
The national cancer plan sets out how the Government will continue to reduce waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, and use new research technology and clinical trials to transform outcomes. Alongside the Prime Minister, last week I met Archie Goodburn in Downing Street to discuss the new action that we are taking on brain cancer, and our determination to tackle every form of that cruel disease.
Richard Baker
That action will be welcomed across the House. Each year, about 20,000 men in Scotland are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and between half and two-thirds of them could benefit from focal therapy, which has a fivefold lower risk of harmful side effects compared with conventional treatments. Will my right hon. Friend share learning and data from the expansion of focal therapy provision in England with Scottish Ministers, as it is still not available in Scotland, despite NHS Fife being well placed to provide a national centre for focal therapy treatment in Scotland?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of improving prostate cancer treatment, which affects so many men across the UK. We are investing £2.8 million to expand access to focal therapy in specialist centres in England, and NICE will look at the progress that is being made. We would of course be keen to work with the Scottish Government on this, and for them to be able to see the same results. It is important that we continue to improve treatment.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Scott, aged 30, is a dad, a son, a partner and a much-loved member of the Banbridge community, but he is battling grade 4 brain cancer. Brain cancer is the biggest killer of young people under the age of 40 in the UK, and survival rates are lower than the average across all cancers. Access to clinical trials is negligible, with only 2% of brain tumour patients successfully accessing them. Will the Secretary of State expand brain tumour clinical trials across the United Kingdom, and ensure fair access across all nations?
Yvette Cooper
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, who is obviously undergoing the most difficult of circumstances, and it is exactly because this is such a devastating condition that we have introduced a three-month rapid review of all the research and barriers to getting more patients into trials. We are of course keen to continue to work with the devolved Governments on this, because the research benefits us all right across the United Kingdom. We will be drawing up a framework to get drugs more quickly into trials, and to get more patients into those trials.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are very interested in this issue, and as the new Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, I am driving the work and giving the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner the urgent and thorough consideration that it requires. As has been stated, the Government are committed to making meaningful progress in this Parliament, and we are advancing non-financial redress to improve health service support for those affected.
Chris Coghlan
In 2006 my constituent, Ruth, had pelvic mesh implanted. It has corroded and caused her severe pain. She has been desperate for me to raise this issue with the Government. Three years ago, she paid for surgery to remove it but that has left her tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket and she requires more surgery. What steps is the Minister taking to implement the recommendations of the 2024 Hughes report, particularly if we are to give justice to pelvic mesh patients and support to those who cannot access the NHS compensation scheme?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very sorry to hear about Ruth’s experience and what she has gone through. Just last night, I watched the film that has been produced about the experience of a number of women—my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) provided a screening of it in Parliament last week—and the stories in it are harrowing. As I have said, I am looking at the issue. I am conscious that right hon. and hon. Members are interested in what the Government are going to do. The previous Secretary of State had made it clear that progress would be made by the end of this Parliament. That is as far as I can go today, but I am personally looking at this issue.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
From pelvic mesh to diethylstilbestrol, women have been harmed by a health system that has not and still does not listen to them, as starkly illustrated in Mumsnet’s recent report, “Medical Misogyny: A Lifetime of Failure”. Does the Minister agree that tackling medical misogyny must be at the heart of how we rebuild the NHS?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why we have revised the women’s health strategy. It makes it very clear that medical misogyny is not acceptable and that women’s voices must be heard.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
As I made clear earlier, we are determined to see support given to North Devon maternity services so that they can reopen to provide quality maternity care. It is the responsibility of the trust to ensure that safe staffing levels are in place, but NHS regional and national teams are also working to support them.
Ian Roome
I thank the Secretary of State for her earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) about North Devon maternity unit. As the local MP, I can attest to how urgent reopening the centre is to the local community. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the plans under way to improve local recruitment. Will she meet me to update me on the work that is under way and will she update the House on the national workforce plan, which is long overdue?
Yvette Cooper
The national maternity and neonatal intensive support team has visited the trust to look at what more can be done. The trust has a particular issue with the recruitment of consultants, and measures that it had assured us would be put in place ended up not being effective, so it now has to take further action. It is important that it continues to do so. We will keep the hon. Gentleman up to date with all the measures that we are taking nationally, but I know he is also in close contact with the local trust. Hopefully, the continued local, regional and national pressure will ensure that those services can open as swiftly as possible.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
The covid-19 inquiry has today published its module 6 report on what Baroness Hallett calls the “devastating impact” of the pandemic
“on people receiving and providing care and their loved ones.”
My thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones in the pandemic, especially those who endured the immense distress and harm of visiting restrictions in care homes, which meant they could not be with loved ones even as they died. I also pay tribute to all those who worked to protect the most vulnerable in very difficult circumstances, from care workers to family members.
The report finds that the adult social care sector was in a “fragile state” and insufficiently prepared for a pandemic, and that social care was too often treated as “an afterthought” in comparison with the priority placed on protecting the NHS. We will provide a full response to the report’s recommendations in due course, but I agree with the chair when she said that
“for too long the adult social care sector has been undervalued and under-recognised”.
That has to end and I hope we can work across parties to support the Prime Minister’s vision for a national care service.
Tim Farron
The only way that children can be tested for metachromatic leukodystrophy and given lifesaving treatment is if their older sibling is diagnosed, at which point it is too late to save the older sibling’s life. That was the case for my constituent Nicola, whose daughter was diagnosed when she was already symptomatic. She died at the age of 13. Nicola’s younger son was able to be diagnosed and treated only because of his late sister’s illness. This cruel tragedy could have been avoided if the Government added MLD to the infant heel prick test. When will the Secretary of State do that? Will she meet MLD families and me so that she can hear from them at first hand about the desperate need for this change?
Yvette Cooper
I am very sorry for everything that Nicola and her family have been through. The hon. Member will know that the UK National Screening Committee guides the Government in screening decisions. It has looked at newborn screening and concluded that there is not yet enough evidence to include MLD in the test. However, it is awaiting evidence from pilot studies looking into screening for MLD and from the recently implemented Norwegian screening programme. I will look further at this issue and ensure that the hon. Member gets a meeting with Ministers to talk about MLD.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank Audrina for the great work that she is doing, supported by the campaign. Food in hospitals is really important, and we would be very happy to meet Audrina. Well done to her.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
With a waiting list of more than 7 million, the NHS needs the sharpest focus on patient care and delivery, but Ministers have created disruption and distraction. I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State, because the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) had said no to a top-down reorganisation and then abruptly changed his mind without, it seems, thinking it through much. Within an hour of the First Reading of the Health Bill, he had hopped it, and now it falls to the present Secretary of State. Does she believe in the right hon. Gentleman’s plan, and does she still believe that NHS England will be dissolved by 1 April?
Yvette Cooper
That is a little rich coming from a Member who voted for the 2012 Andrew Lansley reforms, having promised no top-down reorganisations then doing one of the worst and most damaging top-down reorganisations ever in the history of the NHS. We are taking the Health Bill through Parliament; it is currently going through the House of Lords. We want to focus on frontline care, rather than the huge expansion of bureaucracy that we saw under the right hon. Member’s Government, which ended up absorbing money, away from the frontline, and creating far too much duplication.
Damian Hinds
I did not hear the greatest statement of belief that the deadline for that quango would be hit. Since the original plan, we know that costs are up, that transfer functions out of integrated care boards have been delayed, even though 8,000 people have gone, and that multiple mergers are on hold. NHS England may be the mother of all quangos, but it seems instead we are to get the sister of the mother of all quangos. The special health authority is a new, regional management tier, so does the Secretary of State still expect a net benefit of £1 billion a year in this Parliament? If not, what does that do to frontline health funding on top of the pressures we know about on pay and medicines? Is not the real cost here to patient care?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member’s party and the Government who he supported expanded the number of jobs in NHS England from around 5,000 to more than 20,000 in the space of just a few years. This Government are reducing the number of jobs in administration and bureaucracy in order to invest in expanding the number of clinical posts across the country and across our NHS. We are already making substantial savings, with further efficiency savings and productivity savings taking place this year. This Government are delivering lower waiting lists, more treatment, faster treatment and improvements for patients.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about the state that these buildings were left in by the Conservative party, as Lord Darzi’s report made clear. We are investing unprecedented amounts in capital and giving greater certainty, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposal from Ipswich. It is up to local systems to come forward with plans, but I would be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last week, ITV News uncovered devastating statistics showing that thousands of children are now being treated in hospital corridors. It shared the heartbreaking story of Finlay Roberts, whose parents spent hours in A&E waiting for help before he died—he was just two. As a mum, I cannot bear to imagine waiting and seeing your child deteriorate like that. The Roberts family deserved better, so will the Secretary of State confirm when we will see data on the number of children receiving corridor care, and will she commit to ending corridor care once and for all within a year and making children an urgent priority?
Yvette Cooper
The story of what happened to little Finlay is devastating, and what his family have been through is unimaginable. I reiterate the apology that I have made to Finlay’s family; this happened in the summer of 2024, but it is still devastating that it should have happened, and that he should have been treated in a corridor in that way. As the hon. Member knows, since earlier this year, we have been measuring corridor care for the first time, because we have to end corridor care—it is not fair on patients. I am introducing new assessments of corridor care involving children, because that has to be the urgent priority. No child should be treated in a corridor.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
I recognise that too many of my hon. Friend’s constituents are struggling to secure an NHS dentist, despite the improvements that have already been made. Responsibility for commissioning dentistry sits with the local integrated care board, and I encourage him—through me, by all means—to reach out to the ICB and have a conversation with it. The Government have provided £4 billion in ringfenced funding for NHS dentistry, which has gone some way towards making the improvements we have seen, but there is plenty more to do, and my hon. Friend has my attention.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
There is money available for GP surgeries; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has already said, many of them were left in a terrible state under the previous Government. They were not invested in over many years. There is money available, and when I meet the hon. Gentleman, I will be happy to discuss that with him.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker
Order. Can Members please help other colleagues to get in by shortening their questions?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to look holistically at the provision of services. We want more services closer to home, using technology, care in people’s homes and so on, but she is quite right to highlight this issue. I know that she will continue campaigning on it, and I hope everyone has listened to her, so that people can come together to help her constituents.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Yvette Cooper
The national cancer plan, published by the Health Department, is about prevention, treatment and support, as well as, crucially, research. That research can benefit us across the United Kingdom.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
It is no surprise to me, given my hon. Friend’s record of campaigning on this and many other issues, and the work that she did in opposition and in government, that she would be in such august company to discuss this matter. I pay tribute to her and all the campaigners, because osteoporosis can have a devastating impact on health. She knows we are committed to improving care, in particular by rolling out state-of-the-art scanners, and I am sure we will meet soon to discuss it.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Government propose to abolish Healthwatch and bring its functions inside the Department and local NHS bodies, but patients need an independent champion who can challenge things when they go wrong. What savings does the Minister believe will result from abolishing Healthwatch? How will she ensure that this does not result in the loss of an independent voice for patients?
Yvette Cooper
I am clear that there has to be an independent voice for patients as part of the health system. That is why I said on Third Reading of the Health Bill that the Government were looking again at Healthwatch and would report back in the Lords. We will do that shortly, in advance of the Committee stage.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Alison McGovern
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work with hospices and others on palliative and end-of-life care. I think everybody right across this House wants to see it improved. We have a modern service framework on its way, and as part of the national care service that we are working on, we will make sure that we care for the dying in a much better way in this country.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I recently visited Newmedica in my constituency to see the vital role that independent providers have in offering NHS-funded eye surgery and care. With the Health Bill progressing, what assurances can the Minister provide that it will strengthen the right to choose across all providers and ensure that ICBs make full use of all the choices, which my ICB is not?
Mr Frith
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question. The Government are protecting choice in the Health Bill. It is a chance also to affirm the independent sector and the vital role that it plays. Optometry is not an add on to the NHS; it is an important part of the health ecosystem. I am happy to have further conversations with him.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
As we approach winter, it is even more important that we minimise pressure on hospitals. In Welwyn Garden City, we have an urgent treatment centre at the new QEII, but it is in a modern building, and I believe that it has the capacity to do more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to look at the resources that we could provide to the new QEII to provide greater community care?
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend may know, we have just announced £140 million of new investment in urgent treatment centres and same-day emergency services. That is exactly to ensure that we are easing the pressures around accident and emergency, which went up substantially this summer, linked to the extreme heat. I know that Ministers would be happy to discuss his local proposals with him.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her recent confirmation that the renal dialysis service would remain at Hinchingbrooke hospital in my constituency during the build under the new hospital programme, but I am conscious that it is not in the scope of the actual new hospital and may not be there in the longer term. Can she offer me some assurances that this vital service for constituents will remain at Hinchingbrooke? If not, is any provision being made to ensure that this local resource stays available?
Karin Smyth
I am glad the hon. Gentleman found that correspondence helpful. As he knows, I am keen to discuss the new hospital programme and its progress with all Members. I am sure that discussions about the renal service at Hinchingbrooke continue to take place locally, and that those involved will continue to work together. I know that the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch about the progress of the discussions on behalf of his constituents, and I am happy to talk to him about the issue.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Blackpool Victoria hospital desperately needs more money, because the ICB’s funding for hospital trusts does not account for the 20 million tourists or the complexity of care required. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the hospital receives its fair share of extra funding from the ICB?
Karin Smyth
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of her constituents. We are moving the system governing hospitals such as Blackpool away from deficit funding so that it becomes well governed and managed, in line with fair shares allocation, and I shall be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Torbay hospital, which serves my constituency, is one of the oldest parts of the NHS estate, and the Devon and Cornwall fire services recently ruled that its tower block would now be unsafe in the event of a fire. A quarter of the beds in the hospital are in that tower block, so patients are now being moved. Staff are extremely worried about what will come next, and this is making the hospital much less viable. Will the Minister meet me, and other Devon Members, to discuss its future funding, and the need to make it safe and secure and ensure that it continues to operate?
Karin Smyth
I have met the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) to discuss this matter. Obviously, money has been allocated. We are well aware of the hospital’s position, and it is also part of the programme. I shall be happy to provide further information if the hon. Lady is not clear about the allocations that have been made.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Demand for surrogacy from the UK is leading to the exploitation of women in countries across the globe, including Ukraine, Nigeria and Mexico. Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment on when legislation will come to the Floor of the House, so that we can play our part in ending that exploitation as soon as possible?
Dame Diana Johnson
We are clear that no surrogacy arrangements should place any party at the risk of exploitation, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides guidance on the risks of overseas surrogacy and the steps that intended parents must take to return to the UK with their child. The Government have no current plans to legislate to prevent people domiciled in the UK from entering international surrogacy arrangements.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Under the last Conservative Government, upwards of £300 million, which would have been lifesaving as well as life-changing for many of my constituents, was earmarked for the new Watford general hospital. The lack of those funds, combined with the closure of the urgent care centre at Mount Vernon hospital, means that many of my constituents are not now receiving the first-class healthcare that they would reasonably expect. What assurances can the Minister give local residents?
Karin Smyth
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and others for their campaigning in that part of north-west London and elsewhere. The movement of services is now firmly part of the programme, and the people of Watford will have the services that they deserve. Discussions are continuing, and I shall be happy to update the House on the final decision as soon as possible.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Percy, a five-year-old constituent of mine, wrote to me ask whether gluten-free products would ever be provided on prescription for people with coeliac disease. What steps is the Minister taking to address postcode variations in the provision of gluten-free food by integrated care boards?
Dame Diana Johnson
The national position in England remains that gluten-free bread and mixes can be prescribed on the national health service for eligible people diagnosed with coeliac disease. As my hon. Friend says, ICBs can restrict or end the prescribing of gluten-free food, but I am happy to discuss this matter with her.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Department has thus far refused to publish the impact assessment associated with the US-UK pharma deal. May I ask what the Government are trying to hide?
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful that the Department has moved swiftly to identify the issues with the supply of Bedrolite from Bedrocan, the company in real difficulty in the Netherlands. I understand that there is confidence in supplies until 2027, but my constituents say that that may depend on whether someone has an NHS or a private prescription. Would the Minister and his officials meet me to go through these processes, some of which, from my constituents’ experience, have been very bureaucratic?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The fire service and the Care Quality Commission have now served legal notice against the tower block at Torbay hospital, and more than 100 beds are under threat. With that new information, this is now a crisis at Torbay hospital. Will the Minister please meet me and other Devon MPs to help navigate this crisis?
Karin Smyth
I recently met the hon. Member, and as he knows, we are absolutely committed to working with the local system to do that. I absolutely commit to updating him as soon as possible if he is not aware of where we are on that. I will get something back to him very quickly.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
For those considering suicide, the message must be that there is always another way, but with new Office for National Statistics data showing that the rate of suicide in Cumberland has increased yet again, would Ministers meet me and Cumbrian Members to ensure that our health system is providing support to all when they need it?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. On such an important issue, I will of course meet him. We have had a number of very important debates on this issue, which shows how important Members across the House think this is.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It can take far too long for patients to receive a diagnosis of Lyme disease. My constituent Gill, who is a nurse, gave her life to the NHS, but it failed to diagnose her and she had to seek treatment from abroad. Will the Minister meet me and Gill to discuss what went wrong?
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The damning ITV News investigation of failings in disability care covered the case of Adam Crook, son of my constituent Joanna, who raised serious allegations about alleged assault and unexplained burns, yet these serious concerns remain unanswered. The care home still has not been inspected since 2021 and the provider has faced no sanctions. Will the Minister please ensure that this is investigated, that the CQC acts and that those responsible are held accountable?
Alison McGovern
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his question and, through him, to pass on my concerns to the family he mentions. I will write to him on what the CQC is doing. Baroness Louise Casey has recommended some safeguarding steps that we should take urgently, which we are doing—we have a new national safeguarding board—and I will draw the chief social worker’s attention to the case he mentions.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Constituents in North Herefordshire and across the country want an end to the current postcode lottery in access to adult social care. The King’s Fund published a report on equal access just last week. Has the Minister read that report, and does she agree that social care needs to be locally delivered, but nationally funded?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The research is good, and the crisis we are seeing in some hospitals as we turn the ship around is because we have not grappled with the issue of social care. We must make sure people are cared for in their own homes, and we must do that consistently to help our NHS.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will Ministers meet me to discuss the future of East Cleveland hospital and what other services we can get closer to our community?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to regulating funeral services, but for Jewish and Muslim families, burying a loved one quickly is a religious duty, not a preference. Will the Minister ensure that faith communities and burial societies, such as the Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire in my constituency of Leicester South, are consulted directly, and that the new legislation does nothing to delay burials?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point, because people’s faith needs to be respected as part of ensuring that they have dignity in death and that they and their families are treated with care and respect. We will ensure that this issue is part of the consultations under way at the moment, and this will certainly be a central consideration in ensuring we have an effective regulation system.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
This month, we heard that Wareham’s chemotherapy clinic will reopen early next year, following two years of campaigning, meaning that patients across Purbeck will no longer have to travel long distances to access cancer care. Building on that success, will the Minister work with me to finally restore the rheumatology clinic at Swanage community hospital, so that many more patients can access care much closer to where they live?
Karin Smyth
I am always keen to discuss and visit places in Dorset with my hon. Friend. I am happy to look, with him, at the integrated care board’s overall plan for the provision of all those services.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I recently met pharmacists in my constituency, who expressed concern about the resilience of the supply chain, and specifically about wholesale suppliers spreading rumours, with the result that medicines are stockpiled, forcing up prices. In this case, it was Ramipril, but this is an issue across the board. It is the British taxpayer—our constituents—who suffer. Is the Secretary of State aware of this issue, and has she considered getting the Competition and Markets Authority involved?
Mr Frith
Medicine supply chains are complicated, global and highly regulated. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about price and prospective profiteering, I would be very happy to speak with him in more detail. The overwhelming majority of medicines are in good supply.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite increasing demand, the previous Government scrapped plans for a new health centre in Sinfin, denying our community the care and capacity that it deserves. Will the Minister confirm that this Government are taking a different approach, providing the NHS services in local communities such as Sinfin and beyond?
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. That is a core part of the neighbourhood health offer that this Government are making. We have already announced, in wave 1, a number of neighbourhood health centres; wave 2 will be announced shortly. This is absolutely key to keeping people out of hospital and providing healthcare in local communities.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The unit of dental activity formula is broken, pushing dentists out of the NHS every single day. In Epsom and Ewell, there is a dentist who is restricted from providing NHS dentistry by the UDA quotas. Will the Minister reform the dental contract now, and incentivise NHS dentistry?
Mr Frith
The Government remain committed to longer-term reform of the dental contract. We have to look much more at the outcomes that we are commissioning, and not simply concentrate on units of activity, which have not aged well and are part of the problem that we are trying to address.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
In 2022 in Oslo, a monument was unveiled to Cecilie Flatval, a woman with incurable breast cancer. This weekend, I met my constituent Sylvia, who survived breast cancer and has fundraised extensively through Race for Life. Will the Minister meet me and Sylvia to discuss how we can support a similar monument in the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This is a moment to recognise the progress that has been made as the result of a huge amount of work across our NHS and in research, but there is still a long way to go. I will ensure that he gets the ministerial meeting he seeks.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On Saturday, I joined hundreds of people in King’s Lynn in protesting against leaked plans for Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group to downgrade accident and emergency and maternity services, and the intensive care unit, at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. Does the Health Secretary agree that services should be as local to people as possible, and will she reject any plans to remove services from the QEH?
Karin Smyth
I am aware of the issues around the hon. Gentleman’s local hospital; I have worked with him closely as part of the new hospital programme as well. It is up to local systems to decide on the clinical pathways across the whole patch. Those decisions must be clinically led, and there must be consultation with local people. I am very happy to keep an eye on that, and to talk with him in the future.
Point of Order
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 28 April. I am awaiting a response. I think I have been pretty patient. Could you give me some advice on exactly what I can do to elicit a response?
Mr Speaker
That is totally unacceptable. Whichever side of the House a Member is on, they are carrying out their duties on behalf of their constituents. I hope that the Government Front Benchers have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order. The message is going out loud and clear. If she does not get a reply very quickly, she should come and see me. There are other ways that we can find out why she has not had an answer. I say it once again: this it is not acceptable.
Bills Presented
Artificial Intelligence (Consent and Misuse) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dawn Butler, supported by John McDonnell, Leigh Ingham, Dan Aldridge, Iqbal Mohamed, Dr Simon Opher, Wera Hobhouse, Emily Darlington, Clive Lewis, Lee Barron, Carla Denyer and Margaret Mullane, presented a Bill to make provision about a requirement for consent to generate a likeness of a person using, or with the assistance of, artificial intelligence; to make further provision relating to that requirement; to make provision about civil action in circumstances where that requirement is not met; to make provision about offences relating to the creating or dissemination of such likenesses; to make provision about duties on providers of artificial intelligence technology in relation to misuse of that technology to generate likenesses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 161).
Utilities (Social Tariff) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Graham Leadbitter, supported by Kirsty Blackman, Brendan O’Hara, Seamus Logan, Lara Bird, Dave Doogan and Chris Law, presented a Bill to require utility companies to provide social tariffs for energy, broadband and mobile bills to support customers who are disabled, elderly or on a low income; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 162).
Perinatal Mental Health Assessments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Laura Kyrke-Smith, supported by Dr Danny Chambers, Anna Sabine, Michelle Welsh, Lewis Atkinson, Paulette Hamilton, Maya Ellis, Andy MacNae, Sojan Joseph, Sarah Hall, Dr Simon Opher and Jen Craft, presented a Bill to require the provision of mental health assessments in NHS antenatal care for the purpose of identifying those at risk of perinatal mental health problems and making referrals to appropriate support; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 159).
Social Security (Marriage)
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recognition of polygamous marriages, marriages within prohibited degrees, and certain other marriages between close relatives, in the social security system.
I have brought the Bill to the House to correct an extraordinary fault in our welfare system—one so bizarre and indefensible that I can scarcely believe that we need legislation to address it. We do not yet know what the Government wish to do in this area, but I hope that if the Bill passes today, they will not oppose it on Friday 13 November.
We should begin with a simple question: what is welfare for? Beveridge understood the principles of making a contribution, of responsibility, and of providing security for hard times. You pay into a system and help sustain it, and it is there for you when you need it. Alongside that, help is there for those most in need—those who simply cannot or will never be able to look after themselves. That is the essence of a system that Members on all sides of this House could agree to—a system that is contributory and compassionate. How far have we drifted when our rules make special provision for polygamy or incest to be recognised in the benefit system? Can Government Members—or any other Members—point to where in the Beveridge report it is envisaged that a man’s third or fourth wife be supported? Where was any of that when Beveridge laid the foundations of our modern welfare system?
Some Members take a different view on Beveridge. They have never seen a benefit of any kind, for anyone, that they did not want preserved at any cost. They are unable or unwilling to say no. Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes. I hope that when they see a system that gives special treatment to men with multiple wives, and potentially to incestuous marriages, their inner conservativism will break out.
We are talking about provisions that recognise overseas polygamous marriages and make allowance for additional spouses—a second or third wife and onwards. We are talking about a man rinsing the taxpayer for social security benefits under unbelievable provisions in law that recognise polygamous marriages, which are illegal in the UK. We chuck around welfare payments to such people with abandon. Taxpayers are entitled to ask what on earth we are doing.
The Bill is about polygamy, but it is also about overseas marriages between close relatives. To one of my written parliamentary questions, which I know Ministers appreciate dearly, I received an extraordinary answer. What did a Minister say about overseas marriages between an uncle and his niece, or an aunt and her nephew—marriages that are illegal in the UK—being recognised in our welfare budget? They said it was “unlikely”. Frankly, “unlikely” is not good enough, especially when Ministers cannot give me an answer on how many polygamous or incestuous marriages are being supported by our welfare system.
The standards at issue here are hardly novel. Bigamy has been a statutory criminal offence in the UK since 1604, more than four centuries ago. Marriages within prohibited degrees, including incestuous ones between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, were made automatically void by the Marriage Act 1835, nearly two centuries ago. Our modern legislation explicitly outlaws incestuous sexual activity between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. When Parliament has rightly drawn those boundaries, surely it is right that our welfare system should uphold them.
I have brought to the House this Bill, backed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to end recognition of polygamous marriages and put it beyond doubt that overseas incestuous marriages cannot and should not be recognised in our welfare system for social security purposes.
How did we get here, when such marriages are illegal in our country? How did it come about that we recognise them if they were conducted overseas? The situation developed as a result of common-law rules and decisions made by courts. As in so many other areas, these decisions were probably well meaning, but this situation is completely inimical to a cohesive society and a coherent polity, and anathema to the values of our country. The beautiful thing about our country and Parliament is that we are sovereign; Parliament can legislate to remove uncertainty and revoke common law where it is wrong. Parliament must take responsibility. We decide what our welfare system recognises, and that is the signal that this House should send, clearly and explicitly, through the law of this country.
Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention? Instead, we are bundling cash, first class, to men with multiple wives, and to those who made an uncle-niece marriage overseas. Let us take a sensible step to address the issue in a way that recognises the values behind our benefit system, which is rooted in compassion and the principle of contribution, and in the values of our country. It is not there to pay for cultural practices that are illegal here. Surely it is insane that our welfare rules make special provision for men with many wives. I believe that Parliament should put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that the House supports the Bill, and that the Government do not back away from it, but instead support it on its Second Reading on Friday 13 November.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Holden, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Helen Whateley, Claire Coutinho, Laura Trott, Tom Tugendhat, Katie Lam, Dame Rebecca Harris, Joy Morrissey, Andrew Griffith, Nick Timothy and Neil O’Brien present the Bill.
Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 163).
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:34 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:49 - divided: - Ayes: 117 / Noes: 331 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:03 - divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 178 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Instead, please use our names—Ms Ghani—or “Madam Chair”, which is also acceptable.
Clause 72
The Independent Commission on Information Retrieval
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 73 to 76 stand part.
Government amendment 232.
Clause 77 stand part.
Clauses 78 to 81 stand part.
Amendment 74, in clause 82, page 64, line 39, after “ICIR” insert “, and
(h) analysis of the ICIR’s engagement with non-state actors”.
Clause 82 stand part.
Government amendments 233 to 235.
Clause 83 stand part.
Amendment 51, in clause 84, page 66, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.”
Amendment 109, page 66, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(ab) for subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) The Presiding coroner has the power to allocate a coroner to resume and conduct such inquests.’
(ac) Omit subsection (3).’”
This amendment would require all inquests arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles to be subject to a coroner-led process.
Government amendments 236 and 237.
Amendment 20, page 67, line 3, at end insert—
“(5) If during the course of an inquest it appears to the coroner that the death may have resulted from a criminal offence, he shall stop the inquest and refer the matter of potential criminality to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
Amendment 111, page 67, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 11 on page 68.
Amendment 113, page 67, line 10, leave out from “must” to end of line 12.
This amendment along with Amendments 114 and 115 would require all inquests that were initiated before 1 May 2024, but had not yet been allocated to a coroner, to be directed to the Legacy Commission’s senior judicial panel member for allocation as inquisitorial proceedings.
Government amendment 238.
Amendment 114, page 67, leave out lines 17 to line 6 on page 68.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.
Government amendment 239.
Amendment 115, page 68, leave out line 16.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.
Amendment 129, page 68, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A coroner conducting a resumed inquest must not do anything which duplicates anything previously done in connection with the inquest unless—
(a) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and,
(b) in their view, the duplication is essential.”
This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before resumed inquests may duplicate previous investigative steps.
Amendment 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert
“, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.”
Amendment 33, page 69, line 2, after “A person” insert
“who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is”.
Government amendment 240.
Amendment 112, page 69, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 16 on page 70.
Government amendments 241 to 243.
Clause 84 stand part.
Amendment 142, in clause 85, page 70, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.”
Clauses 85 to 87 stand part.
Government amendment 244.
Clause 88 stand part.
Amendment 105, in clause 89, page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would remove the retrospective effect of the interim custody order provisions.
Clause 89 stand part.
Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 73, line 7, leave out
“does not affect the quashing of the conviction, but” and insert “shall not be applied retrospectively, and”.
This amendment and Amendment 107 clarify that the quashing of previous convictions on the grounds that the Secretary of State had not personally signed an interim custody order should not be disregarded for the purposes of securing compensation for miscarriages of justice.
Amendment 107, page 73, line 8, after “is” insert “not”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Clause 90 stand part.
Government new clause 49—Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland and England and Wales.
Government new clause 50—Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences.
Government new clause 51—On the run letters.
Government new clause 52—Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles.
Government new clause 53—Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces.
New clause 7—Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”).
(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must—
(a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom;
(b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;
(c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom;
(d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service;
(e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces.
(3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
(4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State.
(5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces.
(6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings.
(7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.”
New clause 12—Duty to promote reconciliation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act.
(2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to—
(a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future;
(b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and
(c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors.
(3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Legacy Commission;
(b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;
(c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force.
(5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act.
New clause 22—Restriction on repeated investigations without new and compelling evidence—
“(1) The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“the ICRIR”) must not begin, continue, or reopen any review or investigation of conduct forming part of the Troubles where—
(a) that conduct has previously been the subject of an investigation, inquest or other legal proceedings, and
(b) no new and compelling evidence has become available.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “new and compelling evidence” means evidence which—
(a) was not available to any previous investigation, inquest or proceedings, and
(b) is reliable, substantial and highly probative such that it gives rise to a realistic prospect of a different outcome.
(3) No review or investigation may be begun, continued or reopened by virtue of subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has certified that—
(a) the test in subsection (2) is met, and
(b) it is in the interests of justice to proceed.
(4) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the public interest in finality of investigations,
(b) the age, health and welfare of the person concerned, and
(c) the need to ensure fair and proportionate treatment.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for an independent review of decisions made under subsection (3).”
This new clause would prevent the reopening or continuation of Troubles-related investigations or reviews where there is no new and compelling evidence, and introduces a certification requirement whereby the public interest, age and health of persons concerned, and the need for fair and proportionate treatment are considered before a review or investigation may be begun, continued, or re-opened.
New clause 30—Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate—
“(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required, or has been requested, to give evidence in connection with—
(a) an investigation under Part 3;
(b) inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4; or
(c) a resumed inquest under Part 7.
(2) Where P has provided a certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner stating that P is unfit to give oral evidence, the relevant decision-maker must not require P to give oral evidence unless subsection (3) applies.
(3) Where there are substantial grounds to believe that a medical certificate produced by P has been procured by fraud, or in any other way dishonestly, the relevant decision-maker may require P to disclose their full medical records for the purposes of determining P’s fitness to give evidence.
(4) Where medical records have been requested under subsection (3), P is under no obligation to supply those records to any person other than the relevant decision maker and such records shall not be supplied by the decision maker to any other individual.
(5) Save where the circumstances described in subsection (3) apply, and the decision-maker determines that P is in fact fit to give evidence, no adverse inference may be drawn from any person’s reliance on medical unfitness certification.
(6) For the purpose of this section, “the relevant decision-maker” means—
(a) the relevant Director of Investigations;
(b) the relevant judicial panel member; or
(c) the coroner conducting the resumed inquest (as the case may be).”
New clause 31—Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans—
“(1) This section applies where a decision is made under—
(a) section 28(11) (requests for investigations by certain persons);
(b) section 43 (referral to prosecutors: investigations);
(c) section 61 (referral to prosecutors: inquisitorial proceedings); or
(d) any provision of Part 7 (inquests).
(2) A person to whom the decision relates may, within such period as may be prescribed by regulations made under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure by the Secretary of State, request that the decision be reviewed in accordance with this section.
(3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the decision must be referred to—
(a) the Attorney General for England and Wales;
(b) a person appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales who—
(i) holds or has held high judicial office in the courts of England and Wales; and
(ii) does not hold office in Northern Ireland.
(4) A reviewer under subsection (3) may—
(a) confirm the decision;
(b) quash the decision;
(c) remit the decision to the original decision maker for reconsideration, together with directions as to the matters to which regard must be had in reconsidering the decision.”
This new clause provides for the review of certain decisions by the Attorney General, or a serving or former Judge from outside Northern Ireland.
New clause 54—Reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the Troubles—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on the implementation of Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”).
(2) The statement made by the Secretary of State must include, but be not limited to—
(a) details on how the implementation of Part 4 of the 2023 Act will occur in relation to the entry into force of this Act.
(b) a proposed appointment process for selecting “designated persons”, for the purposes of Part 4 of the 2023 Act, that is transparent and guarantees the independence of those persons appointed.
(c) provisions detailing the reconciliation projects that will receive funding from His Majesty’s Government.”
This new clause would require the Government to make a statement on progress in implementing Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, reflecting recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024–26.
Government amendment 245.
Clause 91 stand part.
Government amendments 267 to 275.
Schedule 6 stand part.
Clause 92 stand part.
Amendment 277, in clause 93, page 76, line 10, leave out “, or” and insert “,
(ea) F is a grandparent of D,
(eb) F is an aunt or uncle of D,
(ec) F is a niece or nephew of D,
(ed) F is a grandchild of D, or”.
This amendment would extend the definition of a close family member of a deceased person, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.
Government amendments 246 to 248.
Clause 93 stand part.
Government amendments 249 and 250.
Clause 94 stand part.
Clauses 95 and 96 stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 97, page 78, line 35, after “(2)” insert
“and subject to the provisions of subsections (3A) and (3B)”.
This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 46.
Government amendment 251.
Amendment 46, page 78, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) unless the condition in subsection (3B) is met.
(3B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement which outlines the steps undertaken by both the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland to implement the undertakings made in “The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland” (“the Joint Framework”), including, but not limited to, a report of the Secretary of State’s understanding of progress on—
(a) a cross-border body on information retrieval,
(b) the establishment of a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to be a central point of contact for cross-border cooperation on Troubles-related cases and Troubles-related investigations being undertaken by An Garda Síochána,
(c) the investigation by An Garda Síochána of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction.”
Clauses 97 and 98 stand part.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
One day more, Ms Ghani.
Today we are debating parts 6 to 9 of the Bill. Part 6 sets up on a pilot basis the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. The commission will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means to retrieve information about troubles-related deaths. Part 7 covers the restoration of a limited number of troubles-related inquests. Part 8 covers further provisions, including the lifting of the prohibition set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 on investigations by the police of other troubles-related offences, including sexual offences, ensuring that there is no bar to investigating crimes based on when they took place. It also covers the provisions regarding interim custody orders.
I will turn first to inquests. I understand the strength of feeling across the House in respect of inquests, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill does not establish any new inquests. However, when the legacy Act abruptly halted a number of inquests on 1 May 2024, we committed in opposition to restoring some of them, as we knew the hurt and anxiety it caused many families in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As we said at that time, it marked a very painful day for families of troubles victims, who felt that 1 May marked a door being shut in their faces, in particular for those who had been involved in inquests.
The truth is that many families have received answers through inquests, and only through inquests. I rather agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) when he said yesterday that he had been brought up to expect an inquest whenever there was a suspicious death.
That is why the Bill strikes a balance on how to take this issue forward. It enables the resumption of the small number of inquests that were cut off midway on 1 May 2024. We believe that those families deserve to have that process continue, as we have said from the outset. For inquests that have been directed but not started, the Bill requires the Solicitor General to sift whether they would be best handled by the legacy commission or a coroner based on clear criteria, including a statutory presumption in favour of the commission for cases involving sensitive material, owing to the greater powers of the commission to take such material into account in producing reports. This is covered directly in clause 84.
There are understandable concerns about how we ensure that veterans are treated with dignity and respect within the coronial process. That is exactly why we have introduced safeguards to protect veterans from cold calling, to ensure that they do not have to travel to or within Northern Ireland to give evidence, and to ensure that the operational context in which they served is fully recognised. Let me repeat: these also apply to inquests, not just to the legacy commission. The Bill also amends coronial law so that inquests cannot repeat processes that have already been undergone elsewhere unless essential.
Let me turn to the matter of when this process comes to an end, which is something that has been raised with me by many veterans and others. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) tabled amendment 50, which sought to remove clause 85. I agree with him, so I have added my name to the amendment—it is now a Government amendment. This means that no new legacy inquests can be directed when the commission comes to an end. In practice, it means that we will simply vote for clause 85 not to stand part of the Bill, when we get to that moment. I believe that this will provide a clear end to troubles-related inquests and certainty for all those involved. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, and for his gratitude when I rang him to tell him that I was adding my name to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that this will mean no additional inquests—full stop, punto final.
As several Members pointed out yesterday, addressing the legacy of the troubles is a responsibility for both the UK and Irish Governments. A unilateral approach simply cannot work, as was demonstrated by the legacy Act. As Sir Declan Morgan, the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has repeatedly made clear to me, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South—and the public, co-operation from the Garda and other Irish authorities will be essential to the commission’s ability to find answers for families. That is why my predecessor negotiated the joint framework, and it is why we are committed to implementing it.
Let us be clear about what that means. Records held by the Irish authorities may well contain crucial information or answers about how UK civilians and service personnel died. I have heard many people make the point that while the British Army kept records, paramilitaries certainly did not. However, we know that the Irish authorities may well have crucial information that is vital to this process.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
That matter is particularly pertinent when it comes to consideration of the Omagh bombing. Given the material that we are discussing today, what indication has the Secretary of State had from the Irish Government that they will withdraw their inter-state case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights? It seems to me that they are very reluctant to act at all.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. By the time we finish considering the Bill today, I cannot see any legitimate reason why the Irish state would continue with its inter-state case at all. I have already made that point robustly to my counterparts in Dublin. I very much hope that they will look again and think again and decide that not only did we win the case in the Dillon judgment, but the legislation that we are advancing today is fully human rights-compliant, and that there is therefore no argument for them maintaining their inter-state case.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State says that he very much hopes that the Dublin Government would move at the conclusion of today’s consideration. Has he had that conversation with them, and have they given him the assurance that that is what they intend to do?
Chris Bryant
Yes, to the first part. As I have just said, I have said this very robustly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee on several occasions. They have kept their own counsel for the moment, but it seems to me inconceivable that, by the time the Bill gets to the House of Lords, there could be an argument for them maintaining the inter-state case, and I therefore hope that they will withdraw it. I am being as clear as I can with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, he and I agree on many, many things, not least the fact that it is good to have power sharing in Northern Ireland and that I should not be running Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I think it is important that the Secretary of State has reiterated the point that the commission will have the ability to take information from the Irish Government. However, without revisiting yesterday’s debates, does that not put into stark relief the fact that while information has been available for the last 28 years, it was revealed only last week? There will be many other instances of information that could beneficially have been considered and led to a change. Is the Secretary of State at all concerned that the history that we repeat time and again with the Irish Government, where they are not forthcoming with the full information and they withhold information, should be a cause for concern for this House and how we deal with the legacy of the past?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. The question then is simply how one addresses that and ensures that one gets the future co-operation that has been promised and committed to by the Irish Government. I am more hopeful than he is, I guess—he may say that is because he has more scars on his back than I have in this regard. I think that between the two of us, with his scepticism and my hope, we might be able to get to a good set of outcomes.
On the Omagh bombing, it is inevitable, I think, that we will end up having some of the same conversations today as we had yesterday, as Members understandably referred then to issues that we are voting on today. However, I would just say to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire that with my understanding of the terms of reference of the Omagh inquiry, we slightly disagree on this matter. I think it will be perfectly possible for the Omagh inquiry to come to some fairly firm conclusions. More importantly, however, as I said yesterday, it is really important that the fullest possible co-operation is shown, and, where the chief counsel has already said that they are not happy with that co-operation, it is incumbent on the Irish Government to step up to the plate.
Chris Bryant
Yes, although this is all on one sentence, and it is the right hon. Gentleman’s second go.
Dr Murrison
I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate the importance of this point, as it does touch on the events of late 1998. There will be people out there watching the process of the Bill and wondering why they are, in effect, excluded from it. With the Bill as drafted, the suspicion may very well be that that is to spare the sensitivities of the Republic of Ireland, as the material that has been referred to would then come into scope if we were to extend this, perfectly reasonably, to the end of 1998, rather than confining it to the events prior to April 1998. If I may say so, the Secretary of State gave no compelling reason yesterday why the amendments that have been tabled to that effect would not be accepted by the Government.
Chris Bryant
You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.
Jim Allister
Good grace. [Laughter.] Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his Government reached with the Dublin Government that they would settle on April 1998 rather than any later date? Is that not what he is holding to for that very reason?
Chris Bryant
The hon. and learned Member really must stop calling me Grace. I know that a variety of different conspiracy theories are flying around here. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday agreement because it is a pretty solid date to land on. It is as simple as that. I do not think that people need to search for any other. We already had this debate and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date.
Let me continue. Under the joint framework, the Irish Government are committed to bringing forward their own legislation to ensure the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, as of course is required under their constitution. In the summer, they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure that our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep.
I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish Government abide by their commitments. That is why I tabled amendment 251, which will require the Government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish Governments have taken in pursuance of the commitments in the joint framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. That reflects the intent behind amendment 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so I hope that he will support our amendment.
The House should be reassured that the key provisions of the Bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government are honouring their commitments. That will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the commission. More importantly, as I said yesterday, I have spoken directly to both Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, and both have assured me and stated publicly that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously.
However, I want gently to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish Government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language. To be absolutely clear, the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with them to secure answers for families.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite what others in the Chamber may think, it is vital that both the British and Irish Governments work together? Indeed, if we do not have that arrangement in place and there are issues around the disclosure or onward passing of facts, those will never be flushed out?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she has done in this field. It is really important that people understand how significant the potential of close co-operation in this field is in getting answers for people, and in particular those whose concerns may be about what happened in the south and came up into the north. One of the issues I have raised directly—a couple of hon. Members have raised this with me—is about gelignite, which came before Semtex, and how it seems that in Northern Ireland we were perfectly able to keep all our quarries safe, but there was one quarry in the Republic that managed to lose quite a lot of gelignite. Those are the issues that we really do need to progress, because if we are going to get to a full understanding of what really happened, the clue will be not just in what happened in Northern Ireland but in what happened across the piece. That is why it is so important.
Because I am a socialist, I also believe fundamentally that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. I therefore think that co-operation is the best way to proceed. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is on manoeuvres.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On that point, clause 72(5) says that the independent commission on information retrieval
“must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland”.
Who will make the assessment of whether something that the ICIR is looking at could risk the national security of the Republic of Ireland?
Chris Bryant
That is a good question, to which I do not have the answer. With any luck, I will be inspired by the time the hon. Member gets to his feet and catches your eye, Ms Ghani, and I will come back to him.
Chris Bryant
I have a horrible fear that this has set off my old sparring partner.
David Davis
To add to that point, when the Secretary of State looks at that, will he also look at elements written into the Irish constitution, particularly with respect to the operation of the Garda and its duty to protect the reputation of the Irish state? That will also cripple any attempt to expose information.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Member makes a very good point. The Irish constitution has sometimes made it far more difficult for the Irish Government to be able to co-operate, and that is why they have had to legislate in some of these areas in a way that we would not have to in the United Kingdom. That is why the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South is so important and why the legislation they are advancing answers many of these precise issues in direct terms. These issues, which we do need to address, are not lost on Ministers in Dublin.
We have always been committed to repealing those parts of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023—that were incompatible with our human rights obligations and which we felt were morally wrong as they risked providing equal immunity to terrorists and denying UK citizens their historic right to seek civil redress. In the interests of providing swift and early clarity, we had proposed to do that via the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was with us yesterday—among others argued that putting those measures in the Bill would allow greater scrutiny without undue delay. Consequently, Government new clause 52 alongside amendments 244, 245, 268 and others move the operative provisions of the remedial order into the Bill. That brings the whole package together, ensuring that there is a clear transition between the legacy Act and the troubles Bill.
On Second Reading and in our engagement on the Bill, there has been considerable concern about the so-called on-the-runs letters to which a couple of hon. Members referred yesterday. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) have tabled amendments on the matter that aim to put the status of those letters beyond doubt. I know that I referred to this yesterday, but, because this matter is before us today, I do want to return to it.
Those letters did not provide any individual with immunity from prosecution, and they are not legally binding guarantees against future prosecution. That has been confirmed by the 2014 Hallett review and by numerous Ministers under successive Administrations, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron. It has also been reiterated by the current chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher. However, I recognise the ongoing concern in relation to such letters, so I tabled new clause 51 to make it clear that they cannot be used to prevent or frustrate a prosecution.
Sorcha Eastwood
I want to put my thanks on the record again. But at the crux of this discussion is how it must go out from the House that terrorism was always wrong, and that people in Northern Ireland and across the UK need to understand now that these letters never had been, never will and shall not be used to frustrate or deny any potential prosecutions that may come forward. Too many people in Northern Ireland have felt that too many had been cosying up with terrorists in the past. I hope that people will take comfort from knowing that these letters never will and never had that effect.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with every single word that the hon. Lady said. It absolutely needs to go out from the House that terrorism was and remains wrong in every single regard. Those who resorted to violence did so for reasons of their own, but not reasons that we could possibly countenance, and which we do not countenance in the legislation that we are advancing today.
As I have said, 90% of the 3,500 or more who were killed in the troubles were killed by paramilitaries. I would go further: a lot of families whom I have spoken to in Northern Ireland felt that on-the-run letters were part of a sort of amnesty that was granted to some people and not to others, or was granted to everyone, and that that meant they would never get answers to what happened to their loved ones. That was always wrong. I understand why people made difficult decisions when it came to the Good Friday agreement, but as one hon. Member said yesterday, we do not get peace without justice. I think the line in the Bible is that justice and peace shall kiss one another. That is what we have to achieve.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
With regards to the OTR letters, the Secretary of State will know that I spoke yesterday on that very issue. The fact that there is clarity today that you are progressing the amendment is welcome. However, on-the-run letters did have effect, as the Hyde Park bomber got away with his misdemeanours because of them. They did have effect. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as I asked yesterday, whether the letters will have effect on the ongoing new prosecution of John Downey who, by the way, is hiding in the Republic of Ireland undercover? Will that have effect on the current prosecution he is facing?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but it is not “you” and not “your”.
Chris Bryant
And it is not for Ministers to comment when there are legal proceedings being undergone either, as I think the hon. Lady will be aware. I will not comment on the specific incidents. I have made my views clear about why there should not be any amnesty for people involved. There was legislation introduced that meant that nobody can face a prison sentence of more than two years. We understand the kind of arrangement that that was. There were people and political parties who did not support the Good Friday agreement, and maybe these are some of the issues that were always troublesome for them. For me, it is important that at this stage we recognise that we need to get as many answers as possible for people, and that there cannot be that kind of immunity, amnesty—whatever we may call it.
The Government recognise that investigations by the legacy commission are just one aspect of addressing legacy. That is why we have agreed to establish, on a pilot basis with the Irish Government, the independent commission on information retrieval. That was originally agreed by the coalition Government and the Irish Government in 2014 as part of the Stormont House agreement, but it was never established. That is why I am pleased to be able to establish it now.
The ICIR is entirely separate from the legacy commission and will not conduct investigations. That is a very clear distinction. Its remit is, privately, to receive and retain information about troubles-related deaths and share that information, again privately, with those family members who have requested it, providing a different means by which families may obtain information about troubles-related deaths. I know, having spoken to quite a few families in Northern Ireland, that they warmly welcome that and want to see it amplified, if we can make the pilot work.
Members will see that I have tabled some minor and technical amendments relating to the ICIR. For example, amendment 235 will ensure that the ICIR is able to produce and provide a report to a requestor after its operational period has ended, in circumstances where it has concluded its work on a specific case but has been prevented from providing a report due to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Investigations and prosecutions in troubles-related cases are often complex and can take some time to conclude. We want to avoid a scenario where the ICIR has concluded its work on a case on behalf of families but is unable to share potentially important information with them in those circumstances, which are beyond its control.
Finally—it is not really my final “finally”; I just noticed that the word “finally” appeared and it really used to wind me up when listening to sermons that had “finally” halfway through. Anyway, finally—
Chris Bryant
Very good.
Having engaged extensively with different groups, I appreciate that there are concerns with the transparency of future prosecutorial decisions. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government do not accept any suggestion that our prosecution services bring forward vexatious prosecutions. This Government believe wholeheartedly in the approach of our prosecutorial services. It is clear that decisions on prosecutions taken by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales are always taken independently, in the light of the individual facts and circumstances. However, there is a public interest in how such cases are considered, given both the context and the passage of time. Therefore, we will bring forward a number of critical new amendments.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Gentleman will let me do these two proposals, I will come back to him.
Yesterday we debated the amendments that will improve transparency around the approach to prosecutions within the legacy commission. We are also introducing two significant amendments to the prosecution of troubles-related offences. First, in new clause 49, we will require the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales to work together on joint guidance on applying the relevant code for prosecutors in respect of troubles-related offences in each jurisdiction. Although the vast majority of troubles-related offences occurred in Northern Ireland, such offences were committed across the UK and there is a shared interest and obligation in addressing the legacy of the past. The guidance will also be able to cover issues such as dealing with the complexity of historical evidence and the public-interest considerations in such cases. I have a “secondly” to come, but I feel the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has been quite patient.
Gavin Robinson
It is “finally” from me, in respect of interventions. The Secretary of State should be cautious when trying to push back against the notion that there are vexatious prosecutions. There are; there have been. We have seen prosecutions in Northern Ireland where the evidential test was not met the first time. It was revised and the evidential test was still not met, but it was suggested that the prosecution should proceed. At no stage during an abuse of process application or a no bail application, or at any other time during the case, did the evidence amount to anything close to meeting the prosecutorial test of likelihood of prosecution—we will leave aside that of public interest. The cases collapsed and the judge concluded that at the very start, the whole process was frail and the evidence did not amount to satisfying the test. Whenever we say—and we should not have fear to say this—that there are vexatious prosecutions, there are very good examples as to why that is said.
Chris Bryant
I hate to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House, Ms Ghani, but I do not think that will be his final contribution today, so it is not really his “finally”.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I have heard from a lot of people, and which I understand, about the very significant frustrations that have been felt, in particular by people in the veterans community. However, I think he meant to say that the prosecutorial decision is obviously about the likelihood of a successful prosecution, or in other words, a conviction. Sometimes the prosecuting authorities are wrong because a jury or a court decides that there is not a case to answer, and so on. I hear what he says, but I think he was only urging me to exercise caution in using the phrase, so I will do so.
Chris Bryant
I note that the right hon. Gentleman says thank you. Secondly—[Interruption.] I will do my “secondly”, if he does not mind, because otherwise the logic of my speech will fall apart. [Interruption.] Ms Ghani, you are not meant to look at me as if the logic of my speech has already fallen apart.
Secondly, to provide greater assurance, confidence and consistency in decisions to prosecute, we are introducing a requirement for the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to provide consent for prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences. To be clear, when making such decisions the Attorney General must act quasi-judicially and independently of the Government. There is precedent for that approach. Some have questioned it, but it was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and since most troubles-related deaths occurred in Northern Ireland but some were in Great Britain, that will provide a single and therefore consistent last determinant. Let me be clear: that in no way obviates the role of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland or the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales—in fact, we are strengthening their role—but I think it gives the right balance.
I trust that the Government amendments address the concerns raised by various Members in respect of the decisions to prosecute, including those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who tabled an amendment to insert additional steps in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I am now coming to my final “finally”, so perhaps the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim would like to intervene.
Jim Allister
I want to take the Secretary of State back to new clause 49 and press upon him again a point I raised with him yesterday. In new clause 32, which became part of the Bill last night, the Secretary of State introduced protections when it comes to inquisitorial investigations of veterans by the legacy commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what was in new clause 32.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I am always in favour of consistency, and I am sure that that is how the two bodies will proceed in drawing up their guidance.
Finally, I look forward to listening to the further contributions of hon. Members today as we continue to consider amendments and that clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill. I really hope that we are able to get the Bill right today. It is about achieving a balance, and I hope that that is what our amendments will do.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides.
In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction.
Sinn Féin argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to republican support for the peace process, was necessary. Where Sinn Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that was not so, because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. While it was said that Mr Downey’s letter had been issued in error, there is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime. Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed, and despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The Government are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the Bill.
Similarly, we welcome Government amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force.
I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework, the investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction. It is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about troubles-related crimes. On the question of those who have escaped across the border, I have had opportunity to mention Gerry McMonagle. He was taken to court for the murder of Hugh “Lexie” Cummings in 1982. The summons that was made for him was unfortunately not absolutely correct, and in the time it took to correct it at the Omagh court, that gentleman escaped across the border. He has risen to be a significant member of Sinn Féin. He has been the mayor of Donegal county council. The fact of the matter is that he murdered Lexie Cummings in 1982. Is it not time for that gentleman to be taken to court? Should this not be one of the cases on which the Republic of Ireland works with the Government here, to ensure that that man is jailed?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working
“in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.]
I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the legacy commission in the Republic. In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south.
Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, yet here we are, five years on, and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all; nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making this point. The Committee should be aware that the Omagh families are this very day in court in Dublin, trying to secure the very same rights to an inquiry from the Irish Government’s perspective as the UK Government have offered them in the United Kingdom. Will he reflect on how wrong the Secretary of State was yesterday evening to reference, in part, a subsequent sentence from the terms of reference, when he knows that any information provided by the Irish Government was provided only to answer the question of whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves?
Alex Burghart
That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.
Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington.
In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.
Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the shadow Secretary of State shed light on the number of inquests that will be granted and what those inquests are? None of us knows how many there are or what they will be about. Where will the money for each inquest come from? We are talking about a couple of hundred million pounds for each one. Can he shed light on what the Government have been telling him on the issue?
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks.
The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I just want to make sure that I understood him; he said that inquests have not dealt with innocent civilians being killed. In fact, they have: the Ballymurphy inquest and the Springhill inquest brought truth to families almost 50 years after their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by British forces. If we are going to talk about this, let us talk about it in the round.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not saying that at all. I am explaining why the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It is because of the way in which certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. I am not talking at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman.
In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that a van-load of men shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces. In the case of Loughgall, an IRA unit attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary base and were shot. Those security forces, who kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things. They no longer trust the inquisitorial process, because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare—to years of court processes in which, even when the judges say, “This is a farce,” or, “This is ludicrous,” they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on.
Amendment 113, which appears in my name, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington would essentially do the same thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak was seeking yesterday: they say, “Enough of the multi-track approach; let us put all the inquests into the legacy commission.” Let us dispense with the twin-track approach, which the hon. and gallant Member argued against yesterday. Of course, the twin-track approach is really a three-track approach, because inquiries are still being granted. As we argued at the time, the Government should have asked ICRIR to deal with, for example, the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. Then, because of civil cases, we will have a four-track approach. For all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope that the Government will at the very least accept that, where we are dealing with military action against known terrorists, the inquests ought to be dealt with by the legacy commission.
Jim Shannon
I am very mindful, as we often are in Northern Ireland, of the experiences we have with many people. I think of the murder of the four UDR men at Ballydugan. The person who did that was Colum Marks. When Colum Marks was later in the process of setting up a mortar bomb to attack the RUC in Downpatrick, he was shot. He deserved to have that capital punishment in Downpatrick. The family should never try to engineer an inquiry for someone who was quite clearly the head of the IRA in the area. When he died, the IRA campaign stopped. That tells you all about it. He is burning in hell today—couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
Alex Burghart
As ever, my hon. Friend gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that happened.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington said last week:
“If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 333.]
There is, I am afraid, an inequity of priorities here. The Bill is not on the side of right. While I am on my feet on this point, I pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help to keep our country safe.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason the Loughgall inquest began, and was then terminated by the previous Government’s legislation, is that the Attorney General in the last Conservative Government, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered all the papers, that it should be held? Is he telling the Committee that he disagrees with the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)?
Alex Burghart
While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.
Two things are true: our legislation would have stopped the Loughgall inquest. That was something that my party supported. Secondly, since that time, there have been some egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong, and we have seen why veterans have lost confidence in those inquisitorial processes. There is a viable alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. He decided not to tear up ICRIR completely or close it down, but to develop it. We might agree with that in some ways and not in others, but there is an alternative way of dealing with this matter, and I believe that that would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who spoke out yesterday.
I turn to the issue of “new and compelling”, which was raised yesterday and is back again today because of new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). The problem is that the Government claim that their qualification “essential” will restrict repeat investigations. However, legal authorities outside the House have pointed out that “essential”, as described by the Government, is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer put it:
“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence”,
but a real test would be to find “new and compelling” evidence. Given that decisions have been taken to prosecute cases in which there is no evidence, there should be a check and balance, and a certification via a judge, to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. That would prevent a biased decision from being taken in Northern Ireland. The Bill currently provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse-and-repeat investigations. They are treated not as witnesses but as suspects. The Bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case, but he objects to amending the Bill in a way that enshrines his public statements that there should be no rinse-and-repeat investigations.
The Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence, but that is not quite what the Bill says. Rather, whether there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered “essential” but there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. There is absolutely no bar to approaching witnesses. The Bill does not define “essential”. The Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition, but that means that what is “essential” will be open to interpretation by the legacy commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term, and that feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Ms Ghani, may not be essential to me.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The key word here, of course, is “essential” and its definition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that defines the word?
Alex Burghart
The KCs whose advice I have sought have not been able to produce any such definition. All of this feeds uncertainty. Decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue that interviewing veterans is essential.
The reason we are insisting on the use of “new and compelling” is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is the very test used to determine whether someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. We are asking for certification in this case—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says there is—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.
The Chairman
Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.
Alex Burghart
You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.
Chris Bryant
Certification is obviously a key part of the amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but one of the problems of course is that presumably certification can be judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead to yet further lawfare.
Alex Burghart
As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.
Chris Bryant
I think it is important that we debate these points in detail, because I understand the reference to the overseas operations Act—indeed, we took the structure for our amendment from that as well—but I just do not understand why the hon. Member wants certification in this Bill when it is not present in that Act.
Alex Burghart
it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.
“New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.
Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was
“eroding the will to fight”.
In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.
Colum Eastwood
Can I clarify the point the hon. Member is making? Is he putting forward an argument that if special forces are not allowed to do whatever they want, in whatever theatre, outside legal boundaries, people will not join up?
Alex Burghart
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.
David Davis
Every single time we have seen a member of the special forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could.
This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure.
I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat.
I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful for the first opportunity I have had to speak on this most important of Bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain and as a very proud member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to cause the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), any discomfort in saying—probably for the first time—that I agree with him. He was right that many excellent speeches were made in Committee of the whole House yesterday. I further agree with the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his diligence and commitment to these issues.
Our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles in great and, at times, difficult detail. I will be speaking to amendment 277 and new clause 54, tabled in my hon. Friend’s name. I would like to acknowledge all those who lost their lives and those brave officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the forces who served and were tasked with securing the peace, including extended members of my own family. I speak from a place of personal connection. My late grandmother’s family are of good County Down stock. As Members will know if they have listened to any of the speeches I have given since the election in 2024, my wife was born in Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday agreement was signed and before peace on the island of Ireland—in a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today. Our family’s experiences, and those of many friends and people across the community, inform my understanding of the hurt, trauma and, yes, hope that lie at the heart of this debate.
This Bill is very important and so are the amendments before us—amendments that are designed to make sure that we get it right. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope that since this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, Ms Ghani, you will not mind my making a couple of general points which have shaped my view of the amendments.
The decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3,500 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, suspicion and fear because of who they were, how they prayed, and their actual and perceived identity. It is in recognition of that hurt that we must approach this Bill and all the amendments before us with care, compassion and responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a path forward: a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language and does not sow any further discord or disunity—we have had more than enough of that over the years. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people of Northern Ireland, which these amendments seek to ensure are respected.
Adam Jogee
We will save that one for later, I think—I will buy him a cup of tea.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans—protections that were not included in the previous Government’s legacy Act. I join the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls. That is, of course, hugely important for all the ageing veterans who served our country, some of whom are in the Gallery today.
The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution. For example, new clause 51 stops on-the-run letters—which have never been legally binding—preventing prosecutions. I thank the Secretary of State for the words he put to that earlier.
The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity and a right for veterans’ voices to be heard are all important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. Those are all so important, and I am grateful to Members across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership and an understanding that peace is not a single event but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments we are discussing this afternoon.
It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: no legacy Bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community, as we have seen in our debates. This Bill is no exception, whatever amendments are tabled and approved. For some, it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. That tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict.
We must also recognise that the Bill cannot, and was never intended to, repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured, principled framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning people’s trust. Most importantly, this Bill must be understood as not only a measure aimed at the past but a step toward the future—a step that has been made more likely with this Bill and many of the amendments that have been tabled by Members across the House, by colleagues of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by His Majesty’s Government.
Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before them. For this Bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history; it must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to ensure we find a way through that. In addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach it, still requires courage and patience. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—both victims and survivors—to those who served, and to future generations to make sure that we get this right and that this Bill is sent to the other place in as strong and robust a form as possible.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
May I begin by apologising to the Committee? Last week’s carry-over motion was a bad-tempered, partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering. I assumed that this week’s Committee of the whole House would be similar and said something to that effect at the beginning of my speech yesterday. I could not have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for almost eight hours listening to them, and I was in awe of the Members who spoke from all sides of the Committee. It was a wonderful moment that spoke so highly of this House, no matter how we agree and disagree.
I still think we should have had a Committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to prove my point. Provided that we invited our Northern Ireland colleagues, a less formal Committee upstairs would have been more effective. I think we all want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence. My party supported the Tories’ new clause 21 to that effect, which was excellent in many respects. That included a certification process with a Supreme Court judge. The Secretary of State said he thought that was impracticable—I agree. I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They do not have the time, they do not have the inclination and, frankly, many of them do not have the evidential expertise to provide that function efficiently.
My party tabled an amendment that included a different certification process, as suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, whereby the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. The Government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192: that the process should only begin after other sources of evidence have been fully explored. We all had something to bring to the table, and had we been discussing this in a sensible Committee upstairs, we would have improved the Bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having Committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues, on Bills such as this?
As I said, yesterday we heard from Members across the Committee in powerful and often moving speeches that covered a wide array of views from the various communities impacted by the Bill. I was hugely taken by the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and the right hon. and gallant Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, and the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I have heard some in the veteran community also say, that justice might not be possible and we should focus on truth and reconciliation. However, as the Secretary of State said a little later, one cannot have reconciliation without justice. Members will accuse me of being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both Members are correct.
The key to resolving the apparent disagreement lies in how we define justice. In these debates the notion of justice is often mediated through a lawyer’s narrow conception of the word, and in terms of criminal prosecution and civil liability—an essentially retributive concept. But justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience it also includes restorative justice, where truth and sometimes reconciliation are key. That broader more holistic view of justice is not at variance to truth and reconciliation, but a critical component. Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer’s lens risks preserving divisions and animosities, for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy inquiries providing limited chances of prosecution. If we want to achieve reconciliation, we must broaden our conception of justice to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers.
Yesterday I broadly focused on veterans. That is because my party and the constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, including many who served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. In saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who the Bill must deliver for, and the thousands of victims, survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry that weight today. As others have said, veterans and victims are not two separate groups. Those who served bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families are also victims of the troubles.
The one thing that nearly every victim wants is answers. In particular for those families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today: how, where, who and, most importantly, why? I wish to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent WAVE centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives of those who had been murdered by Stakeknife, and who had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They did not get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful for the process, to Jon Boutcher who headed it for much of the time, and for the fact that someone was listening to their concerns, and they had the opportunity to speak to those involved and get answers to what had happened. Information and answers give families restored faith. The process built trust, and even though they did not get what they wanted from Jon Boutcher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process, which helped with the healing.
Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O’Kelly’s murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children. Anne Frances O’Kelly described the process as “something sacred and transformative”. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer—it could not—and it did not lead to the prosecution of a terrorist for a heinous crime, but it provided closure all the same. I share, as I hope we all do, Anne’s hope that as many families as possible will be able to engage in that process, which has such a key role to play in reconciliation.
I appreciate that ICRIR and its successor, the legacy commission, have information recovery functions, but they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State places great emphasis on measures in the legacy Act, referring to oral histories. I do not doubt that those will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Bill presents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, and to try to make a more active approach, and broader our understanding of justice.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The peace that Northern Ireland has today rests on the reconciliation process that we have seen in recent decades, civil rights and the rule of law, as well as the recognition that differences must be settled through dialogue and democratic means, and with respect for the rights and perspectives of every community and tradition.
The peace in Northern Ireland today was also built on the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Operation Banner, thousands of whom came from Sunderland. They did not go from Sunderland to Northern Ireland to be on either side; they went because they were actively recruited by the British state at a time when there was high unemployment in places like Sunderland. They stood on Northern Ireland’s streets, overwhelmingly as a protective force, on sentry and patrol duty, guarding civilians, on constant alert against those who were trying to kill. Over 38 years of Operation Banner, 1,441 of our British service personnel died; 722 were killed by paramilitaries.
I listened carefully to the debate yesterday. As others have said, there were many fantastic and moving contributions. I pay particular tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is not in his place today. The contribution that moved me most, and most closely reflected the experience of my veterans in Sunderland, came from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is not in his place today. He described serving as a young rifleman on the streets of Northern Ireland, and not knowing, when a civilian raised their hand, whether they were making a purely innocuous gesture, or about to throw an incendiary device. That was the experience of the constituents I met at our local Gunners Club in the recess just gone, for a two-hour roundtable to discuss the issue.
The reality is that without the Army’s deployment in 1969, Northern Ireland faced the risk of far more bloodshed than it unfortunately experienced. Those who served held the line for decades—long enough for politics to finally take its place—and we must never stop saying thank you to them. As others have said, it is not right to set veterans against victims, and to suggest that veterans were not, in many cases, victims themselves. Serving both, and all, allows us all to move forward to a peaceful future, but that will take changes to the law, through this Bill, and full co-operation and transparency from the British and Irish Governments.
I am clear that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed on multiple counts. It commanded the support of no community and no party in Northern Ireland, and it undermined the ongoing process of reconciliation, which recent weeks show is still absolutely essential. It also failed victims of every background, including the families of the British soldiers murdered by the IRA in Guildford and on the M62, whose killers would have been offered immunity. We should never forget that those bereaved military families were among the most vehement critics of the previous Government’s legacy approach; indeed, they were part of the legal action against it.
Many who came home still carry the cost. In the conversation I had with veterans recently, they shared their remembrance of what they saw in Northern Ireland, how that affected their life still, and how, when they got home, they had far too little support on discharge from the British state. The reality is that there were 300,000 Operation Banner veterans, and six prosecutions of them. However, too often since the Good Friday agreement, it has felt as if the legal system was built to scrutinise the split-second actions of frontline soldiers—process as punishment. At the same time, comfort letters were given to suspected terrorists, the very people the soldiers were sent to protect civilians from. That system has also felt focused on individual frontline soldiers, not on failings in the chain of command, although in some cases, its decisions profoundly affected civilians. Those who served with honour deserve to live out their life in peace, with our country’s thanks, not fearing a knock at the door. They were offered false and undelivered promises by the previous Government, and they did not feel that the Bill as introduced was appropriate.
In that spirit, I have engaged with our Ministers on this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), over the past year. For a significant time, I was clear, in our private meetings, that I could not support the legislation unamended. I sought many amendments, and some of them were discussed yesterday. New clause 32, which was agreed to, is clear that action taken in the course of duty must never be treated as equivalent to terrorism. New clause 43 sets a tight time limit of 14 days for an application for judicial review; that will give some clarity about whether be lawfare can take place long after legal proceedings seem to have closed.
I am pleased that the amendments that we are discussing today go further on the assurances that veterans have asked for and that I have pushed for over the past year. As the Secretary of State said, under new clause 50, no one can be prosecuted for the most serious troubles-related offences without the consent of the Attorney General. That applies to everyone, so it is not an amnesty. The peace that we have in Northern Ireland was built on the rule of law, not sectional favouritism for one group. The new clause offers a senior independent check from outside Northern Ireland’s politics. That will go some way towards winning the trust of veterans who have lost faith in the system. The reality is that following the acquittal of soldier F, no one expects further prosecutions.
A second point about the amendments that we are considering today is that they offer no special exit for terrorists. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the collapse of the trial on the Hyde Park bombing—an attack that killed four soldiers—was the result of an apparently mistakenly issued letter of comfort. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly said that such terrorist action was always wrong; there should never have been any doubt about this House’s condemnation of that. Veterans saw that old soldiers were questioned decades on, while suspected bombers held letters saying that they were not wanted. That ends today.
Thirdly, and for most veterans most importantly, there will be an end to being investigated and questioned again and again. Yesterday’s amendments mean that investigators must go through the state’s own records first, and give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence exists before requiring any veteran to give evidence. Under new clause 84, which we are discussing today, a resumed inquest must not repeat what has already been done, unless that is essential. I welcome the Secretary of State setting out the clear process by which inquests will end altogether. A veteran who has given his account should not be made to relive the same night, and answer the same questions, every few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) underlined, there will be protections for veterans against cold calling and returning to Northern Ireland, which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion.
I will support the Bill, as the amendments are sufficient, in my view, to win the confidence of veterans. However, the Bill cannot be the end of Parliament’s interest in the issue. I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South about how the changes will be kept under review. I welcome the fact that under amendment 251, there will be an independent inspection of the legacy commission, and a report to the House on what the UK and Irish Governments are doing to ensure that the promises made in the Bill are kept. Transparency must run both ways across the border, and this House must play its part in holding both Governments to their promises.
If this legislation passes, veterans will have significantly more protections than at any time since the Good Friday agreement—protections written into law, and protections that support justice and answers for all, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA. But I know that some veterans feel today that we are not yet there; too many have been told that. My local veterans’ charity receives calls from people who served 30 years ago who have never been subject to any questioning or doubt. They have been picking up the phone and saying, “What’s this I hear about the Government wanting to come after me?” What they have heard is clearly not accurate. Of course, I respect the right of anyone in this House to scrutinise the Government through each of our votes.
However, anyone who says that they care about veterans’ welfare is acting absolutely shamefully if they scaremonger, raising fears among 300,000 veterans who have never been subject to any doubt about their conduct, and the honour with which they served. There is a difference between political scrutiny and political point scoring; the latter does no service to our veterans, and I hope that the rest of the debate is the former. Our veterans deserve peace and reconciliation as much as the people of Northern Ireland do. It is through the foundations that they laid, through their service, that the reconciliation that we see across Northern Ireland is partly possible. It is in honour of their service that we must create the conditions for that reconciliation to continue. In honour of those who have served and every victim of the troubles, I will support today’s amendments and the Bill tonight.
David Davis
I commend the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on his speech. While I disagree with some of its substance, I agree with a lot of his sentiment, and his support for our veterans is welcome.
May I thank the Secretary of State for his telephone call at home to tell me that he was going to support my amendment 50? I should have realised—I have been here long enough—when I looked at the Order Paper for amendment 50 in the name of David Davis that it would have become Government amendment 50. I feel as if I have been nationalised. It is the only time that I will approve of a nationalisation. I thank him for that.
I commend the Secretary of State for the elegance and tone of his speaking over the past couple of days. This is the most formidable and difficult of Bills facing the House, as I think anybody would recognise, and he has navigated it with great charm. He has reinforced my view that he should have been in the Cabinet long ago, and I thank him.
Gavin Robinson
He has already signed it, David—there is no need to lick up.
David Davis
I am trying to do as much damage as possible. [Laughter.]
I stand to speak principally to amendment 51 and, to some extent, to amendment 49, which would stop existing paused inquests going forward. Amendment 51 would address directly the paused inquest relating to Loughgall. I picked that event out because it is the most controversial and central to what the IRA were trying to achieve. It is emblematic of many of the reasons why we should not pursue any of these inquests, but should put them in their proper place with the legacy commission, which could deal with them dispassionately.
Before I go any further, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and not just this year but in previous years. They relate to the fact that I was the trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for well over a decade—I cannot remember how many years.
All parties in the debate so far, yesterday and today, have quite properly focused on the need to get closure for victims and, at the same time, to deliver justice for our veterans. Nobody can argue with those two aims. I am focusing mostly on getting justice for veterans by preventing them being punished by the process, but, before I pursue that line in detail, I will address some of the words and definitions that we are using, particularly the definition of “victim” in the operation of inquests in Northern Ireland.
We all have in our minds a fairly clear idea of what a victim is, but unfortunately it is a little different in Northern Ireland. The difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government in article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which changed the definition of “victim” and ruled that anyone affected by the troubles through loss, trauma or injury would be classed as a victim. That means that proven murderers killed in an attempt to carry out another murder count as victims. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.
This issue is still relevant. In September last year, the Democratic Unionist party used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. Most of us would think of that as a tautology, but the motion was defeated by Sinn Féin, supported by Alliance. That is incredibly central to this matter, because the word “innocent” exposes the truth and draws a line between terrorists and their victims.
In response to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, “veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms, but “terrorists” and “victims” are. That is the significance of the amendments I am talking about. In the IRA active service unit killed at Loughgall, there were any number of people to whom that applied. The clearest example was Jim Lynagh, who was guilty of at least 20 murders and probably more than 30. His nickname was “the executioner”. He was not an innocent victim by any rational judgment of the word.
Why Loughgall? It was the greatest single defeat of the IRA—the one that they are most sore about and still feel the scars of. Why is that? Because it involved the defeat of what they considered their most successful unit, the East Tyrone brigade. What was the measure of that success? That so-called brigade killed 250 innocent people. The defeat at Loughgall was seen as a humiliation for the IRA, and that means that they are now desperate to rewrite history and cast their murderers as heroes and British soldiers as amoral killers. That is why they want a coroner’s inquest, rather than a legacy commission.
I am afraid that in Northern Ireland a coroner’s inquest is in many ways public theatre; it is just different. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), made this point, but I will reiterate it. In the rest of the United Kingdom, an inquest is not allowed to pursue a case if it becomes at all apparent that it may lead to a criminal prosecution, such as the finding of an unlawful killing, but in Northern Ireland the reverse is true.
Even Northern Irish judges recognise the ludicrous nature of that situation. We saw that in the Coagh case with Soldier B, where there was judicial review attempt after judicial review attempt, which led to the judge talking about the
“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”
The judge in that sequence talked about having to make views or judgments in slow motion or freeze frame on decisions. Those were life-and-death decisions, for the individuals concerned, and they were made in fractions of a second. That is the central reason for my objection.
Why are operations such as Loughgall, Clonoe, Coagh or any of the others challenged by supporters of the IRA and others? The peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland made this sort of operation necessary. How is that? The IRA knew how to frustrate justice. They would murder or intimidate not just anybody who thought that they might be a witness, but their families. If I were in that circumstance in Northern Ireland, I would baulk at giving evidence if I felt that my family might be murdered as a result of doing so, and I would baulk at serving on a jury for the same reason. That is why we ended up with Diplock trials, which had judges without juries, because that was simply not viable. When Diplock recommended those trials, he gave the example of a man who was executed in front of his young son the day before he was due to give evidence in a terrorist trial. That is the background and the circumstances.
However, the IRA did not stop there. They understood that, as well as witnesses, the other thing that matters in court cases is forensics. That is why they wore a strange uniform of boiler suits, rubber gloves, shoe coverings or wellingtons and balaclavas, because they knew that they had to deny the evidence, but that was not all. When they had carried out their crime, the cars used were frequently abandoned and burned to destroy the evidence. There are plenty of examples—I think Clonoe was one of them—where a crowd prevented the authorities from getting close to a car until it had burned out, for the very simple reason that it destroyed the evidence. Even in the case of the murder of a previous Speaker at Stormont, Norman Stronge, and his son, the IRA set fire to the house, with the same aim.
Mr Campbell
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the IRA’s determination to deal with forensics, does he know that they also blew up the forensics laboratory in south Belfast, where the forensic information had been gathered?
David Davis
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That serves to focus our minds on the fact that this was a very deliberate strategy. This did not happen by accident, and the IRA did not just take to wearing boiler suits as uniforms; this was a deliberate strategy.
The IRA’s strategy faced the state with a conundrum. Doing nothing and sitting back does not work—if the jury processes and other judicial processes do not work, that is not an option. Why do I say that? Let me go back and take the East Tyrone brigade as an example. It killed 250 people before Loughgall. During the late ’80s, it was killing people at a rate of 10 or 15 a year. Doing nothing meant that 10 or 15 innocent people would die every year because the state was not fulfilling its duty, so the only way to stop it was to catch the East Tyrone brigade in flagrante—in the act of carrying out a crime—and try to arrest them. Of course, the first aim of the state is always to act with minimum force if possible, but the circumstances did not always allow that. This was an armed set of terrorists, probably in the process of trying to kill somebody, who might then turn to kill you, and you had to stand up and say, “Excuse me, you’re under arrest.” We saw from many of these events how dangerous that was. At Coagh—the case that went through all those judicial reviews—an SAS soldier effectively had to dress up as a UDR man to be the target, and they had to wait until he had been shot at before they moved.
At Clonoe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned, there was another problem: the intelligence was wrong, which made it even more difficult. There they were facing a double-barrelled dushka machine gun, .50 calibre and capable of bringing down light armour or aircraft. A three-second burst of fire from that and the whole patrol would have been dead. That was the sort of thing we were asking our soldiers to do. I will come back to the Loughgall example, which is even worse in many ways. That was the sort of thing that we said to our soldiers, “You must do this to attempt to achieve an arrest, or at least a stop if you have to.” This is not theoretical; in the specific context of the special forces, which is what these three cases relate to, hundreds of soldiers died in Northern Ireland. If Members want to look into this, I recommend that they look up the example of Lance Corporal David Jones, who was shot at the moment of challenge, or that of Captain Westmacott. There are others, but those cases give the Committee clear examples of the sorts of risks that had to be taken—and were taken—by our brave, honourable, decent and law-abiding soldiers.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said:
“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?
David Davis
I agree with David Johnstone—by the way, I think he is a very brave commissioner. His predecessor was effectively fired for standing up, and he is still standing up. He is right, and to go off on a slight tangent, our other enemies learn from this, as we are seeing elsewhere in the world today. If we are not very careful, we will end up without one of the best parts of our armed forces, because we ourselves will have destroyed it.
Let me come back to Loughgall. The aim at Loughgall was to destroy the police station and kill the police officers who would be coming off shift at 7 pm—the attack was timed for 7 pm. It was not the first such operation, but the third; it came after Ballygawley, where the IRA shot and killed two police officers before blowing up the station, and the Birches, where they machine-gunned the station—fortunately, they missed people—before blowing it up. At Loughgall, the IRA team attacked the police station in two units. One unit was in a van, carrying a team armed with automatic weapons with the intention of killing the three police officers as they came off duty, and the other unit—of three men, I think—was in a JCB-style digger that was carrying in its bucket a 300 lb to 400 lb bomb.
The attack happened at 7 pm, when the police officers were due to come off shift. Inside the station at the time, because of intelligence that was known, there were three police officers and three SAS soldiers. To be frank, I find it hard to imagine the level of courage it takes to sit in a building, waiting for it to be blown up by a 300 lb or 400 lb bomb. It is beyond my imagination, but that is what they did.
The attack started when the van screeched to a halt, and a number of the unit debussed and opened fire on the police station. They fired a total of 78 rounds; I do not know whether all of them were fired at the police station, but I imagine most of them were. Inside the station, people reported being hit by fragments of bullets as they hit the steel frames of the windows and disintegrated. The digger then crashed through the perimeter fence and the bomb exploded, destroying half the building and injuring the occupants. “Injuring” is too mild a term, frankly—one occupant had a fractured skull, while others had broken bones, and two of the soldiers fell about 10 feet on to rubble. Others sustained hearing injuries.
Colum Eastwood
Can I ask the right hon. Member to put on the record that another man, Anthony Hughes, was killed on that day in that operation? He was a totally, completely and utterly innocent civilian who was not involved in any IRA activity, or in any other organisation.
David Davis
I was about to come to that point, and I will probably come back to it again. That is the real tragedy of that day—he was the real victim, as was his son, I think, who was wounded as well. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with this, but one of the things about the British state is that we take our judicial responsibilities in these matters seriously, and we have prosecuted our own soldiers. The name Clegg jumps to mind, but there are others who were prosecuted and sent to prison even for acting irresponsibly, let alone malevolently. Of course that is the worst tragedy of that day—that is literally in my next paragraph. I will give the hon. Gentleman my notes after this debate, so that he can see for himself.
Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why I say that this case should go to the legacy commission. It is a really important thing to investigate, but it should be investigated in a cool, analytical manner, not in the theatre of the court. Why do the IRA want to have a coroner’s inquest rather than a legacy commission investigation? Because they were humiliated at Loughgall, and they want to rewrite history with themselves as the heroes and British soldiers as the villains. Let me give the Committee an early sign of the sort of thing they will try to claim.
We have been hearing recently that these IRA people were only aiming to destroy the building—they were not aiming to kill anybody. That would have been completely different from the first operation, where they murdered people in cold blood before blowing up the station. That also does not explain why the IRA fired 78 rounds at the building—bullets kill people, not buildings. It does not explain why they were there at the shift change, when the RUC men were about to come out of the building. It is plainly nonsense, but it is the sort of nonsense that they want to perpetuate in a court. That is another reason why I would rather see the dispassionate actions of the commission than the activities of IRA lawyers in the courts.
Carla Lockhart
The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Loughgall is in my constituency, and he has rightly said that the East Tyrone killing wing of the IRA was the most barbaric, bloodthirsty wing of the IRA. It is important to remind the Committee of the names of Eva Martin, Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, the four UDR soldiers killed by the Ballygawley landmine, the two RUC soldiers murdered at Ballygawley station, and Harold Henry of Henry Brothers, all of whom were murdered by these people. When we look at their CV, it certainly does not say that they were just going to blow up a building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the name Jim Lynagh in this regard. He was under investigation for Sir Norman Stronge’s murder at the time of Loughgall. Pádraig McKearney had been convicted of firearms offences, too.
As we discuss this Bill, the Government have the opportunity to stop the second inquest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do the right thing and include within the legislation your amendment 51 to stop the second inquest and to show that when these people met real soldiers, it saved lives?
The Chairman
Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.
David Davis
I am very close to the end, Madam Chairman. The hon. Lady is exactly right, and that is the entire thrust of amendment 51. If I had had my way, I would have said that amendment 49 was better, because it would have stopped all these inquests. The amendments would not get rid of the investigations, but would put them into a better process, which the Government have designed.
I will finish on coroners courts. I have listened to a number of soldiers who have appeared in these courts, and the Committee can guess who I am talking about, but they are tough, intelligent soldiers. However, the court is not their environment, when they are being harassed by a lawyer not to get to the truth, but to get a story out of them. I spoke this morning to one of them who has been through more of these court cases than most, both inquests and judicial reviews. He told me that IRA lawyers are, in his words, “more interested in drama than justice”.
David Davis
No, not on this point. I am nearly at the end. I have already been rebuked by the Chairman for going on.
What that soldier said is, I am afraid, consistent with what I saw. I have never appeared in an inquest, but I have appeared in a Diplock court in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Sorry, am I being heckled? I saw the same: the lawyers were interested in rewriting history. The IRA would welcome the restarting of the Loughgall inquest. They would view that as a victory in its own right, because it would allow them yet another attempt to rewrite the history of the troubles.
I will make an aside, which in a way goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), although it is the converse of it. One of the soldiers at Loughgall got the military medal. In my view, many of them should have done, but he got it for putting himself at extra risk to save civilians and to prevent the death of civilians. That tells us what we are dealing with in relation to British soldiers in Northern Ireland.
My last point is that this operation was approved in detail by the general officer commanding, Northern Ireland. I believe that it was approved in detail by the Secretary of State. It was reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with all of the information to hand—forensics, witnesses, the lot. We should remember that RUC people would not have been involved directly, but would have given witness statements. Do we want to run that through a circumstance where the evidence is degraded, where people’s memories have gone and where some have died? One of the individuals involved has dementia. Is that what we want to do, or do we want to do it properly, by dispassionate method, using an instrument that is designed for the process and that those on both sides of the House agree will work?
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank all those who have contributed to what has been a relatively constructive debate over the past two days. It is not lost on me that our work in this Chamber, and over the coming days in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is about the legacy of the troubles, paramilitary transition and a 1990s parading dispute, as if we did not have problems and challenges to deal with in the present day. The sad reality is that despite the seismic changes in our part of the world over the decades, the past is not the past; it infects and affects politics, policing and public services every day. That is why we need to get through it. Most of all, it affects victims and survivors who, through all the decades of change, have been told to wait while the rest of society is allowed to move on, and while the murders of their loved ones are justified, explained away or minimised.
The truth is that for three decades, the needs of those with most to hide have been prioritised, rather than the needs of those with most to heal. It is not the victims who have dragged this out; the lesson that has not been learned by some in this House is that we are still at this three decades on precisely because the information that families need has had to be clawed and prised out of the hands of those with most to hide. For those families and for the Social Democratic and Labour party, this legislation is not about being obsessed with the past. It is not about raking over what has gone on. It is fundamentally about the future and our ability to move forward together. That is why we make no apology for supporting this legislation or for trying to make it better.
I will address today’s clauses and schedules, and some of the amendments and arguments that have featured in the debate, including on the passage of time and the trope about vexatious investigations, and some statistics relating to those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) rightly set out in powerful detail the healing power accessed by truth for the Hillsborough families and the meaning that that has had for them. Another fact that bears repeating is that tens of thousands of republican and loyalist prisoners went through the justice system for their terrible crimes—crimes that our party stood firmly against in the face of provocation and sectarian horrors from every direction. Nobody here is calling those people heroes. Imperfect as that justice was, it did take place. Those who wish to describe those people as heroes—none of whom are sitting on these Benches or anywhere else—are bolstered by the failure to show any sort of nuance, and by the blind defence of some of the most brutal killings of the troubles.
We understand the pride that many in this Chamber feel for the British Army. We understand that of the 300,000 men—mostly men—and women who served, the vast majority did go out to try to keep the peace and to serve. We also need to restate that the number who have been investigated is practically in single figures. We acknowledge that many of the soldiers were subjected to horrors. We acknowledge their pain and the interventions of many of their families who are seeking access to truth, the same as any other family, because that is what this is about—not lawfare and revisionism.
I have to ask people to be careful with their language, when they use terms like “IRA lawyers”. Do Members know what has happened to people in the past when they have been named in this Chamber as IRA lawyers? They were shot dead in front of their families. Can we have a little caution in some of the language we are using?
This Bill is about the healing power of information and the right of families to access it. That right was powerfully articulated not only in terms of the Hillsborough families, but in the report published last month into the murder of Rory O’Kelly, a founding member of our party. He was a decent man and a family man who represented the non-violent civil rights protesters. He was brutally murdered while attending a funeral in his hometown by the Provisional IRA, because of his belief in and his professional service to the rule of law. His case in the report, released last month with feedback from his family, gives some sense of the release and the comfort that families can find in investigations, even if, in that case, no prosecution follows. It should be read and understood by those who want to smear those who support this legislation as being republicans involved in IRA cheerleading.
We all know that prosecutions will not follow in most cases, but that certainly does not mean they should be off the table when the evidence leads that way. That brings me to the amendment that would design in a veto role for the Attorney General in London. That could undermine the processes we are legislating for today. Independence of the judiciary is a principle worth protecting in general, and especially in these scenarios. I appreciate that this is hard for many in this Chamber to hear, but the UK Government were not some neutral player. They were an active participant many times in our horrible conflict. How can families truly have confidence in in these processes when a veto belongs to a Government who they feel participated actively in the conflict and, on many occasions, covered up that information?
I also want to address some of the fairly wild and mind-bending interventions about the Republic of Ireland, and to welcome the co-operation that the Bill represents, up to and including some op-eds implying that it constitutes a move towards EU re-entry—a combination of some of the greatest hits that we hear in this Chamber. The fact is that the Stormont House agreement, signed in 2014, created the potential for the architecture that would make it possible to go through legacy processes and to capture some of the many themes and patterns that Members on both sides of the Committee have tried to highlight, and created possibilities for us to push back against some of the revisionism and counter-narratives that many of us oppose.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
We owe our special forces an enormous debt. I understood that more clearly when I served in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office. That debt has not been honoured with the endless and unjustified litigation against Northern Ireland veterans. In Northern Ireland, there has been a sustained attempt to paint a moral equivalence between those who are maintaining law and order and those who conducted murder. Veterans fear persecution, and that is why I support amendment 129, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), which will require a new evidence certificate to be issued before the resumption of any inquest.
As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) described so movingly, on 8 May 1987 a heavily armed eight-man Provisional IRA team approached a police station at Loughgall. They used a JCB to breach the perimeter, with a 300-to-400 lb bomb in the bucket. They were engaged by the SAS and killed. It was the largest single loss of life for the IRA. Tragically, an innocent civilian was mistaken for an IRA member and was killed as well.
There have already been four investigations or inquests into Loughgall. If there is another, what further answers are the families expecting? On their own terms, their loved ones were members of the Provisional IRA, committed to violence for political ends. What would this mean for veterans? Anyone who opened fire would be anxious that doing their duty could be portrayed as a serious crime. I share the grave concerns of SAS veterans and their regimental associations. The failing in the Bill is that there is no robust, objective test to prevent the reopening of inquests without new and compelling evidence.
I may be a Member of Parliament, but I am also a reservist soldier in the London Guards. I have served alongside soldiers who know that they have done nothing wrong, but who now worry about the possibility that in 30 or 40 years’ time they too could be hauled out of retirement into court. How can that be right? British soldiers risked their lives for others, and we owe them the just protection of this amendment.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I have found the conduct of the debate, today and yesterday, deeply encouraging. It has been thoughtful and meaningful, and the passionate speeches that we have heard have informed my insight and understanding in respect of Northern Ireland veterans and of all the other issues. Indeed, my hope for democracy, candour and a progressive Parliament has generally been restored, following other debates that I have had the privilege of sitting in on.
As you will know, Ms Ghani, I spoke to the Committee yesterday about some of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those changes: he has listened. The change on equivalence matters to me, as do protections against people being investigated again and again for some of the same events. However, I still think that we have got the architecture of the Bill wrong from the start. What happens to outstanding inquests is of concern, and balancing truth and reconciliation with justice is almost impossible. Let me explain why.
We have 38 inquests that have stopped. They will restart under the Bill; some will go back to the coronial system, while others will go to the legacy commission. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could tell me whether the inquests that sat with the Solicitor General can go straight to the commission, or whether will they need to be opened, as inquests, before they move to the commission following a recommendation.
Chris Bryant
When the Solicitor General carries out his sift of those processes, they will go straight to the legacy commission.
Al Carns
That is encouraging to know, but although these are deaths from the same conflict being considered decades later, we are deliberately providing two different routes for dealing with them. For more than 12 months I have recommended that we create a single centralised body to deal with the troubles-related issues. I know that there are some who would be uncomfortable with that, particularly those who represent families who have waited a very long time for an inquest, and I understand why that is. I am not suggesting for a moment that those families should lose the work that has already been done; the evidence gathered should go with the case. Nor am I seeking to prevent prosecutions. If the commission finds evidence that someone committed a criminal offence, whether that person wore a uniform or belonged to a terrorist organisation, that evidence should go to the prosecuting authorities. I am trying to get us to one process in which we can have some confidence.
There is a reason why I feel strongly about this. We need to be very careful about the history that we are creating through the legacy process, and also to think about why it is impossible to balance truth and reconciliation with justice. The state kept a great many records during the troubles; of course it did. Operations were recorded and reports were written, and the people involved can often be identified. There is an enormous amount of material about what the British state did and did not do. The IRA and other terrorist groups did not keep operational records. There is no equivalent archive sitting somewhere with records of who gave an order, who carried it out, and what happened afterwards.
Colum Eastwood
I am not sure that we know that the IRA did not keep records, but that is an aside. What we do know very well, given all that we have seen over the last number of years and the reports that have been done, is that the IRA and other terrorist organisations were riddled from top to bottom with informers reporting directly to the British state. Those files exist, and they could tell us a whole lot about what the IRA and other organisations were up to.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention, but when the records exposed threaten either national security or individual security, we must take that into account.
Yesterday, I think we all agreed that families deserve justice and answers, and indeed that many want closure, but with the majority of the murders during the troubles and conducted by terrorist organisations remaining unsolved, there just is not the evidence to get to the truth or to justice. I would like to ask: how is the Bill going to change that? Let us think about that. How is this Bill going to change the amount of evidence, and where is the new evidence to come from? I think we need to be honest with the families: do we genuinely believe that ex-IRA or Unionist terrorists are going to come and give information to this process? If by coming forward to offer information to provide answers that would at the same time self-incriminate the witness or individual providing the information, how many will participate?
I hear people talk about Ireland and about new biometric and forensic evidence-gathering capabilities, but there just is not the evidence to get to the truth. The reality—I could be wrong, and if I am proven wrong, I will hold my hand up—is that very few terrorists, if any, will come forward. The quest for the truth will rely on slivers of new evidence—and I mean slivers, although that does not mean we should not investigate them—that are found or indeed that arise from Ireland opening and giving the UK access to its extensive archives. Do we believe Ireland will do that? It would be politically very difficult and legally painful, and indeed it would lead to questioning the reputation and moral compass of successive Irish Governments.
We need to be honest with families: this Bill will not magically produce new evidence, and that creates a very real problem when, 30 or 40 years later, we try to establish the truth through legal proceedings. Material available to investigators is inevitably much richer on one side than it is on the other. If we put the cases through different processes as well, we will make the problem even worse. I have described this before as creating a hierarchy of truth. I do not mean that as a slogan, but something quite specific. What can be investigated most easily becomes what gets investigated most thoroughly, and what gets investigated most thoroughly produces the most findings. After enough years have passed, those findings start to become the history of the conflict. I do not believe anybody in this Chamber intends that to happen—I genuinely do not think that is the case—but intention is not really the point. We need to look at where the system we are building eventually takes us.
The Bill is trying to prevent repeat investigations, and I welcome the work to do so. I will, however, give a small example. Soldier B from Coagh has not been charged, but has had eight years of legal process, and three court cases have ruled that his actions were justified and there was appropriate use of force, yet the family have received legal aid to take the case again to the Supreme Court. Soldier B is unlikely ever to be charged, but he has undergone eight years of legal uncertainty and will endure many more. This is not about prosecutions; this is about the process being wielded as the punishment.
I come at this as a Labour MP. The Good Friday agreement asked an enormous number of people to do very difficult things. There were decisions made as part of that settlement that many people found very hard to accept, and still do. Prisoners walked out of jail, and people who had been enemies were expected to sit in government together. Blair and Mo Mowlam understood that there was no settlement available that could somehow settle every account from the previous 30 years, but they were trying to stop another generation having to live the same argument.
I worry that we are in danger of doing the opposite with legacy. In 10 or 15 years’ time, the Northern Ireland people’s understanding of what happened will come in large part from what is being established now. If over those years one part of the conflict has been examined again and again, because that is where records and people are available, while much of the activity of terrorist organisations remains beyond reach, we should not be surprised if people begin to draw conclusions from that. That would be a poor legacy for a Labour Government to leave them.
None of this diminishes what families have been through. There are people—hundreds of people—who have spent decades trying to find out what happened to someone they loved. They are entitled to pursue the truth, and I would never vote for a system designed to deny it to them. However, I also know veterans who have lived for years with the possibility that somebody will reopen an event that has already been examined, sometimes more than once—in many cases more than once. Many of those people are now very old men, and we cannot keep pretending that endless process is the same thing as justice.
The Government have chosen to strengthen the legacy commission, and I think that is the right thing to do. If we believe the commission can do this work, let it do the work. We should give it these outstanding cases and the material already collected and let the families take part, and if it finds evidence that belongs before a court, that is where it should go. Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has questioned the justification for having two approaches to these revived inquests. I think that is a fair question, and I have yet to hear a convincing answer, other than that it will stress-test the framework agreement with the Irish.
Gavin Robinson
Thank you for calling me, Ms Ghani. It is a huge privilege to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He has been steadfast and faithful not only to the principles that he upholds and expounds, but to the bonds with his comrades and the legislation’s consequences for them. He has acted in a selfless way, and I guess that is the mark of the man. There are many in politics who would not have taken the position that he did, so it is a pleasure to follow him, and I thank him for his contribution.
I feel I need to do this given his speech, but I must mention the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He started off almost apologetically this afternoon, and last week, after the carry-over motion, he took sanctuary in Londonderry with me and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He feared he had done something inexplicable: he had united the House against him. I did not agree with that assessment, but I believe he is approaching these issues with a level of diligence that we appreciate, and I thank him for that.
Yesterday, I spoke more broadly about the Bill and the amendments then before the Committee. Sometimes I lament that, on issues such as legacy, far too many people hear what they think is being said because of the person saying it, and they do not listen to the contributions being made. There are people in this debate who think, “Well, they would say that anyway, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Brits,” or, “They would say that, wouldn’t they—always standing up for the Irish,” or, “They would acquiesce, wouldn’t they—always in the face of terror.” I do not think that does this debate any good. There are people I fundamentally disagree with—we are on different sides of the Chamber and we will be in different Lobbies this evening—but there are things they say and contributions they make in this debate that I agree with.
I do worry that, so often in this debate, there seems to be a tension between victims and innocent victims and soldiers, or should we say “state combatants”? Some would describe them as that, but I think it is disrespectful. We pit individuals against one another. Why does somebody like me talk about veterans and the need for veterans’ protection? It is because those individuals volunteered to stand up for the things that we value in this country.
I listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who is not in his place at the moment. He said that when the Army was deployed in Northern Ireland, it was not deployed for one side or another. That is not quite right. It was deployed on the one side that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland were on: those who believe in the rule of law and in upholding the decency of democracy. It was deployed to stand up for our values. When I say “our values” I mean Protestant, Catholic, dissenter, none—those who believe in the values that hold our society together. The Army was deployed on the side against those who wanted to destroy our nation, destroy our livelihoods and take our lives.
That is why the Army was deployed and that is why we owe it to the veterans—as a Parliament, as a legislative Chamber—to provide protections. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge regard though we clashed many times on these issues, will know that I asked him not to talk about protections for veterans if they did not amount to measures that protected those very same veterans. Talk of safeguards and talk of measures that may be brought forward which could provide some level of comfort, but let us not describe them as protections if they do not protect.
What we hear and see before us today, and throughout the course of these debates, are the following measures: fairness, dignity and respect. They are offered as a protection to veterans. There should be fairness, dignity and respect for anybody in these processes. Of course, they do not apply to veterans; they apply to everyone. On witness participation, witnesses should not be compelled to participate unless there is “new and compelling evidence”. It is offered as a protection for veterans, but it is something that applies in principle to everyone. I do not challenge that, but I do not pretend it is something it is not. On older veterans, this legislation and the amendments before us would guarantee that they are treated with respect and with care, and that an assessment is made if needed. That is their participation. It does not just apply to older veterans. It is presented, wrongly and mischievously, as a protection for veterans, but, rightly, it is an application of a principle that applies to all.
Then we have the provisions around the Attorney General and the consent required in Government new clause 50. Veterans asked for this. Veterans asked for the Attorney General, who also serves as the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to be incorporated into this process. That it has been offered, satisfies the requests of veterans. They asked for it because they do not trust—I heard it earlier mentioned—the politics of Northern Ireland in prosecutions. Our prosecution service in Northern Ireland is independent of politics—it is independent of politics in Northern Ireland—but the consent required of the Attorney General is given because it has been requested by veterans, and veterans assume that it will add some level of protection. But it will not.
Whenever that has been challenged, and whenever the Secretary of State has been challenged about why he is doing it—challenged by victims, challenged by loved ones and challenged by others—he gives an answer that he gave again last night. It is in Hansard. He says:
“yes, completely. That was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is important to note that the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, would have only a quasi-judicial function, and would use precisely the same prosecutorial process as they would for any other prosecuting decision.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 867.]
What started as a request from veterans has been welcomed by some veterans’ groups who think it will add some level of protection or cover from the infected process they see in Northern Ireland, but it will not. We know very clearly: one, applies to everyone; two, quasi-judicial process; and three, just replicating exactly the same principles of the prosecutors who are making the decision in Northern Ireland in the first place. So the question is this: why do it at all? What benefit is there at all if they are replicating the same process which is approached independently, is quasi-judicial and applies legal application? What does it add to the process at all?
I said it this morning to a wider audience in Northern Ireland and I will say it again this evening: the problem with this proposition is that it started as a request. That request was acquiesced to and people were led to believe that it was a level of protection. When challenged by victims who say, “How can you be stepping in to protect? How can you provide a mechanism that is going to protect a certain cohort?” the answer is, “Well, actually, it doesn’t apply to them alone; it applies to everyone and actually, it is just exactly the same application of principle that you will see in Northern Ireland. It is quasi-judicial anyway and of course it could be judicially reviewed.”
The reason I raise these points is because I think it is fundamentally important that people speak accurately—accurately, Ms Ghani.
Chris Bryant
Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Attorney General move, or not?
Gavin Robinson
I am happy to sit down and take a further intervention. I asked this: what is the point if it replicates exactly the same process and applies exactly the same principle as adheres to Northern Ireland prosecutions? Why make it a provision in this legislation? Why bring forward the amendment? It was acquiescence to a request from veterans—that is where it started—and then it came from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It has been presented as a protection for some, yet it applies to everyone equally and is a replication of a process that already exists. My question—it is not a question for me as to whether I support it—for the Secretary of State is why it has been introduced at all.
Chris Bryant
I have already explained it at some length, both yesterday and earlier today. I think the right hon. Gentleman was in his place when I said it. This is not to take anything away from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. They are going to be co-operating on producing guidelines on how these decisions are to be arrived at, but there will be some instances that relate to troubles-related deaths in England. There will be some—relatively small compared to the number of Northern Ireland—and it makes sense that there is consistency across the whole United Kingdom. It is a process that has been used elsewhere and that is why we are advocating it. I ask again, does he support the amendment or not?
Gavin Robinson
Every time the Secretary of State speaks, he confuses issues and muddies the waters. Does the process apply to every case, or just to those in England?
Chris Bryant
This is slightly odd now, but of course it applies to all cases. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I ask again, does he support the measure or not? He has privately argued for it to me in the past.
Gavin Robinson
First, I put forward the request from veterans’ organisations, as well the Minister knows. Secondly, if the Secretary of State is incapable of arguing, or unwilling to argue, for the added benefit of the proposition as presented today, that will be of interest to many listening in the House. Do not pretend that protections are being offered when they are not. Do not pretend that they do something different from what they are intended to do. For the Secretary of State to say what he has just said says an awful lot more about him than me.
Gavin Robinson
There you go; it is pathetic, Ms Ghani. This Committee will consider the amendments, but I have no doubt, given the lack of scrutiny and interest in most of what was before us yesterday, that they will be agreed on the nod—and then time will tell.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Good Friday agreement and the peace that we enjoy today would never have been possible without the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. We in this House are united by the debt that we owe to the thousands of British Army personnel who served with honour in Operation Banner over four decades. Many of them trace their story back to my patch, the home of the British Army. We will never forget the Aldershot bombing of 1972, one of the IRA’s first attacks on mainland Britain, targeting the headquarters of the 16th Parachute Brigade. Seven innocent lives were lost. Their families, and all those who lost loved ones during the troubles, are in my thoughts today.
These issues are woven into the very fabric of my community. That is why I have sat in this Chamber for all proceedings on the Bill over a year in this place, except for those on last week’s carry-over motion. It is why I wrote to the former Secretary of State in January, calling for stronger safeguards for our veterans; why I have spent many months pressing Ministers to ensure that our armed forces are protected from repeat investigations; and why I facilitated direct discussions between veterans’ groups, the Northern Ireland Secretary and No. 10, working with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba).
I thank all members of our armed forces community who have engaged with me during this process, particularly the Parachute Regimental Association and its Aldershot branch, the Royal British Legion, and those watching our debate in the Gallery today. I have been determined to ensure that their voices are heard in this legislation. Together, we have made the case for greater recognition of the challenging operational circumstances in which our armed forces served; we have made the case for veterans and their families to be given a voice in the new legacy arrangements; and we have successfully made the case that there can never be equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were focused only on taking lives.
I welcome the progress that has been made, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans and People; they have listened, engaged and acted. I wish only that we could have started from here. The Bill is much improved on the version that first came before this House, but I will not be voting for it tonight. To be clear, I will abstain on the vote on Third Reading.
There are some in the House who would do away with the Bill altogether. I would not, as we would then lose safeguards for veterans who currently have no protection whatsoever, and too many families—including hundreds of armed forces families—deserve a process to help them find answers. There are others who have dismissed this legislation as a veteran’s charter, but I respectfully disagree with them. There must be accountability, but those who have dedicated their life to serving us should not have to spend the rest of their life fearing investigation over and over again. My test has always been that the legislation should give every veteran the clarity and confidence that they deserve, and it is clear to me that there is still more work to be done.
We have heard in this debate about soldier B, the man who has been cleared three times but could still face yet another process. If this Bill cannot do anything for those who may face similar situations in the future, that should give us pause. As someone who is proud to represent a seat in which there are 5,000 serving personnel, I want those who serve today and in the future to know that we will always have their back.
Chris Bryant
First, I want to put on the record from the Dispatch Box the gratitude of the whole Northern Ireland team to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is sitting behind her, for the work that they have done. Some of the changes that we have made to the Bill at this stage would not have been possible without her contribution. She said that the process has not ended; I believe that, too. I undertake that the whole ministerial team and I will work with her and others, as well as with the Parachute Regimental Association and other associations, to get the Bill to the right place by the time it is enacted.
Alex Baker
I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. The progress we have made in recent weeks is to his credit, and the Bill is in a much better place for it.
I return to the point about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back. Whether in this Bill or the defence readiness Bill that I hope will come shortly to the House, we can do more to tighten up the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, so that we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. Our veterans’ organisations have many ideas on how this Bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those the fullest consideration.
Doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics—it is our shared duty. I cannot support the Bill tonight. It is not a choice that I make lightly, but I am not giving up on the Bill, either. There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across the House, and I hope that we can work together with those in the other place. I also hope that we can still work together with our armed forces community to get this right. I will continue to play my part.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
We are debating the parts of the Bill relating to the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, inquests, and relaxations of the restrictions on police investigations. There is only one word to describe the measures in those parts of the Bill, and indeed the totality of the Bill, and I am afraid that is betrayal.
The Government demand much of their soldiers. They ask brave men and women to put their life in danger, and to sacrifice huge amounts. What do they get in return? We ostensibly have a military covenant, but the truth is that it is honoured more in the breach than the observance. The question really is: what do our troops get in return, at a time when the Government propose cutting the defence budget for military equipment by billions of pounds, will not promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030, and are asking men and women to step up and serve as reservists? The truth is that this country treats our enemies better than our heroes. [Interruption.] I am afraid the truth is that our bravest people get treated worse than those who terrorise us. That is what the litigation shows and what the Bill reflects.
The reality is that these measures will build more architecture and more process, and the process becomes punishment. The measures perpetuate the retrospective prosecution—and persecution, if you will—of our brave troops, many decades after their national service. This extension of litigation and lawfare wholly fails to comprehend and appreciate the complexities of battle and military action.
When terrorists are planning to attack us, they have the cards stacked in their favour. They can decide what to do, who to target, when to do it and how to do it. Our military, on the other hand, often have zero notice, and they have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds to defend themselves and others. Now, many decades after those acts of bravery, lawyers, officials and Government Ministers are applying harsh rules to people who put their life at risk for our security. The decisions they made at the time were lawful; they were following orders and adhering to rules of engagement often set by their superiors, by officials at the Ministry of Defence or by Ministers, none of whom is being held to account decades after the act.
Let us remember: our armed forces are known around the world for upholding the highest standards of engagement in battle. They uphold the rules of the Geneva convention and the law of armed conflict, and they are known for engaging appropriately and proportionately with lethal force. This legislation and, indeed, the minefield of human rights legislation have operated to build a labyrinthine level of complexity when it comes to military action. We are tying our brave soldiers up in knots and, as a result, dragging them through the courts.
Chris Bryant
One of the serious points that the right hon. Lady made earlier on was about the operational context in which people served. Does she welcome new clause 32 that we have tabled?
Suella Braverman
It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.
As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.
Jim Allister
Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?
Suella Braverman
The hon. and learned Member puts it incredibly powerfully. The European Court of Human Rights has wholly distorted the application of article 2. Article 2 protects the right to life. No one here would disagree with that. It is an absolute right, and it was designed to protect individuals from state-sanctioned and arbitrary killing. That was the right intention behind the article’s drafting. But, because of decisions such as the one he refers to and many more, article 2 has now come to mean that people are entitled to an unlimited level of investigation and inquiry, that terrorists are entitled to compensation and that families of the IRA are entitled to be paid out because, as he says, their human rights have become more important than the human rights of law-abiding citizens and the victims of terrorism. It is an absurdity, and that is why my position remains that we must leave the European convention on—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will not tolerate allegations of misleading, even from a sedentary position. Members must observe the courtesies of the House.
Suella Braverman
This Bill is, I am afraid, a retrograde step. It takes us backwards, not forwards from the legacy Act. It is really tragic, because the Government are asking for many young people to join up and serve their country, but why on earth would a young person take up that offer today? Traditionally, our soldiers have gone into battle to fight for our country. They have shown incredible heroism, courage and bravery, on levels that many of us can never imagine, and they have always felt confident that the Government would have their back and that they would be supported by those whose orders they were taking.
Today, however, many people serving in the armed forces tell me that they seriously question whether the Government would indeed back them. When they take the decision to pull that trigger today, will they have the confidence that the Government will stand up for them, many years down the line? Will their bravery today be twisted against them in years to come? Today, frankly, they cannot be sure that the Government will support them in their acts of courage. I am here speaking on behalf of veterans in my constituency of Fareham and Waterlooville, who tell me—[Interruption.] Opponents may be shaking their heads and chuntering, but I am here representing what has been told to me by those serving on our frontline.
The first duty of a Government is to defend the realm. Surely for that to mean anything, it must mean that the Government will stand by those men and women who put their lives in danger to defend our security. This Bill has failed in that duty, and it should not proceed.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
We cannot build a more reconciled future without honestly confronting the past. During our year-long inquiry into the legacy of the troubles, my colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I heard that message time and again from victims, survivors and families whose lives continue to be shaped by events that took place decades ago. It is a message that has stayed with me and that I firmly believe.
That is why I tabled new clause 54, which reflects recommendations made by the Select Committee following our inquiry. It seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation of the reconciliation and memorialisation provisions contained in and carried forward from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
One message came through consistently during our inquiry: dealing with the past is about more than investigations alone. Victims, survivors and communities want meaningful progress on reconciliation. They want confidence that the stories, experiences and lessons of the troubles will be remembered in a way that is balanced, inclusive and capable of bringing people together rather than deepening division. However, many of those who gave evidence expressed uncertainty about how the memorialisation provisions under part 4 will operate in practice. Questions remain about who will lead the work, how independence will be guaranteed and what projects will ultimately receive support.
New clause 54 asks the Government to do something entirely reasonable. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to set out how the part 4 provisions will be implemented, how designated persons will be appointed and which projects will receive Government funding. Those are not minor administrative details; public confidence depends on them. For many families, the legacy of the troubles is not a matter of history; it is one of lived experience. Reconciliation cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires trust, engagement and confidence in the process.
Families are also at the heart of my amendment 277, which concerns a matter that may appear technical, but is deeply personal for many of those who have been affected by the troubles. It, too, reflects a recommendation of our Committee’s inquiry. The inquiry repeatedly heard that the impact of troubles-related death often extends far beyond the narrow family relationships currently recognised in legislation. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews have frequently carried the burden of loss, grief and uncertainty for decades.
The Government have argued that the current definition strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on immediate family members while allowing others to come forward when no close family member exists. I understand that intention, and I recognise the concern that requests should not be made against the wishes of those closest to those deceased. However, family life is rarely straightforward. Grandparents have raised grandchildren, aunts and uncles have acted as parents, and extended family members have often been among those most directly affected by a loss. Although we realise that no statutory definition can capture every circumstance, the definition should reflect that reality as far as possible.
The Select Committee heard evidence that the definition of “close family member” should be broadened. Both the ICRIR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the current definition is too narrow. Amendment 277 would therefore extend that definition to include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunties, nieces and nephews. As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told the Committee, such an expansion is necessary to ensure compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights.
Ultimately, this is not about legal definitions. It is about people—people who lost loved ones, who have waited many years for answers and whose family relationships do not always fit neatly with legislative categories. If we are serious about putting victims and survivors at the heart of the process, the framework must be sufficiently inclusive to recognise the wider family who continue to live with the legacy of the past. I therefore urge the Secretary of State and the Government to reflect carefully on the substance of these amendments.
Alex Easton
I rise having carefully considered clauses 72 to 90. The test of any approach to the past is not whether it offers a tidy conclusion for Government; it is whether it serves those who have lived for decades with loss, uncertainty and unanswered questions. Does it give families a fair chance of finding out what happened? Does it preserve evidence? Does it ensure that those responsible for murder, of whom 90% were terrorists, remain subject to scrutiny, however much time has passed? I am not convinced that these clauses have totally met that test.
Across Northern Ireland, families have carried grief throughout generations. Some have spent years seeking the truth about the deaths of parents, children, brothers and sisters. They should not be asked to trust a process unless it is independent, rigorous and open to challenge. An official account cannot be the final word simply because it is convenient. Families must be able to question it and, where new evidence emerges, to seek further answers.
We in Northern Ireland know that the legacy of terrorism cannot be set aside for the sake of political comfort, despite the attempted rewriting of history to sanitise the evil of terrorism. In June 1922, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, a Unionist MP for North Down, the constituency which I have the privilege to serve, was murdered by IRA gunmen outside his London home after unveiling a war memorial at Liverpool Street station. His name reminds us that terrorist violence has victims and that remembrance must be accompanied by determination to establish the truth.
That principle applies to every family regardless of background. Opposing these clauses does not mean opposing reconciliation. It means insisting that reconciliation must be built on honesty, accountability and a confidence in the process, not on asking bereaved people to accept that the difficult questions have been settled for now. If this House is serious about dealing with the past, it must listen to innocent victims before it congratulates itself on finding a legislative solution. It must protect the possibility of further scrutiny and refuse to let any Government decide that the search for answers has become inconvenient.
Having looked at the clauses, I see that some have been improved. I recognise the provision for on-the-run letters—that is good, and I applaud the Government for trying to get that right. However, there are other areas where I still have concerns. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is not in his place, made a powerful speech, and I was very taken by his comment about the Irish Government and their Bill going through the process with ours, allegedly, and about information that will come from that Bill. Unfortunately, that Bill does not guarantee that victims, families, members of the security forces or veterans will get the answers from the Irish Government. We are being sold a pup on getting all the information we need from the Irish Government. Labour Members can sigh, but in my experience, we do not ever get very much information from the Irish Government. I stand by that.
Many months ago, I got information from the past about a former member of the IRA, John Crawley, who did time for smuggling weapons into the Irish Republic and for trying to bomb London. That information, which I tried to pass on to the PSNI, was clear proof that this individual had shot a British soldier. The PSNI told me that it could not investigate that because it was legacy. I was advised to go to the legacy commission, but the legacy commission would not accept the case from me because, as an MP, I could not refer cases to it.
The only avenue for me to get this case looked at, because of legacy, was to write to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), many months ago, and I have not even had an acknowledgment of where this case is going or not going. That makes me suspicious that this very serious issue about legacy that I am raising as an MP is not being addressed, yet we are expecting this Bill to answer all the questions. I do not think the Irish Government will give us everything we want on this issue.
Chris Bryant
I will make sure that the hon. Member gets an answer to his letter by the end of the week.
Alex Easton
I thank the Secretary of State for that, but I have deep concerns. It is not that I do not want truth or reconciliation. There have just been too many false dawns for me and my colleagues representing constituencies right across Northern Ireland, and I do not have a huge amount of faith in this process. For that reason, I am unable to support the rest of the Bill.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to support the Government in this important debate. For my generation, it seemed as though the troubles were an intractable problem of the age. It was hardly possible for a week to go past without hearing about one atrocity or another. Growing up in the west of Scotland, we were aware of the troubles; we had friends with lives that had been impacted. Northern Ireland was geographically so close, and culturally close, but remote and unfathomable at the same time. That is why, after more than 30 years, the Good Friday agreement represented such a massive breakthrough. Many Members will know better than me just how much went into reaching that agreement—compromise on all sides, a willingness to move forward in good faith and hope for the future.
The Bill will continue the work of the Good Friday agreement, and it fulfils a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. It is about creating a mechanism that has the capacity to shed light on the darkest moments of the troubles. It does so while being respectful of the families affected and providing a route to the truth in an honest and sympathetic way.
I know there are concerns from veterans and veterans’ families, but genuine protections for veterans ensure that they can speak their truth with dignity and respect. In my constituency, we have many veterans who have served across the world with courage and distinction. Their service is appreciated. Nothing in this Bill will detract from that service. It will ensure that veterans are not faced with repeated demands to provide accounts of events over and over again. It respects the operational realities that existed for service personnel at the time and the practical realities of being asked to provide recollections of events so many years after they occurred. Importantly, veterans’ voices will be heard in a process rooted not in blame and recrimination but in truth and reconciliation.
Sorcha Eastwood
I want to make some initial comments on new clause 50 and the role of the Attorney General. I will be fairly straightforward in my opinion on that: I do not support it, and I have severe concerns about where it will go—a political appointee and a member of the Government consenting to the prosecution of serious troubles-related offences.
New clause 50 matters greatly in Northern Ireland because it unpicks a key reform that flowed directly from the Good Friday agreement. The criminal justice review mandated by the Good Friday agreement was explicit that
“there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters”.
That reform was not created out of nowhere; it was not in the abstract. It was a result of proven politicisation of the Attorney General’s power to overturn DPP prosecutions. A system that allows such disparity cannot be relied on, and that is why the Good Friday agreement sought to take that power away. New clause 50 would give it back. Our concerns about the new clause are not theoretical; they are based on past experience—experience that the Good Friday agreement had to rectify. That power for the Attorney General cannot be allowed to return.
Let me make some wider points. Yesterday, along with many others, I made the point that this cannot be a debate about victims versus veterans—I note there are still some veterans in the Gallery, and I wish to reiterate that before the Bill goes to the other place. I would posit a different version of events. We heard some excellent remarks from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), and yesterday the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) hit on the same theme. Many of the people who came to Northern Ireland to serve were teenagers, or people from largely working-class communities. People have sometimes told me that they felt uncomfortable in another part of the UK with how they were expected to react to events or to some of the conversation and chat around and among them, or even about them.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) referred to the operation at Loughgall, which he said had been approved by the general officer commanding. That is something to consider. I know that some ground has been gained in the contemporisation of the operational environment in which people served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the British Army and the RUC, and for that I have the utmost sympathy, but we will not have a situation, will we, if something arises, where the GOC will be in the dock? That is just not going to happen, and I am not sure that that is correct, accurate or fair.
I want to have my final say on veterans, because there is a concept of natural justice at play and we should not seek to supress it. We should not seek to make that dirty or something that is at odds with every other member of society. Where I depart from some others is that I think something has entered the discourse. I have been involved with veterans for many years, and this is something that entered the discourse recently. I made this point yesterday and I will make it again today: some sort of thesis seeks to suggest that people who served inherently did something wrong that could lead to the so-called knock on the door 10, 20 or 30 years later. That troubles me deeply.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I have many veterans in my constituency, some of whom have come to talk to me, and I would like to quote from one, a chap called Michael Kingscote:
“There must come a point at which the country says to those who served: ‘You did your duty. The state sent you there. The state must not abandon you decades later.’”
I believe that is the very point.
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, with which I think a lot of Members will have sympathy. It builds on the point I sought to make yesterday, which to me is completely related and concerns the national security veto. We know for a fact that through disclosure and other troubles legacy-related cases, some people involved with the security services and security forces at the time have said, “We are being forced to redact or stop disclosure of information that frankly in the court of public opinion makes things look a hell of a lot worse than they are.” That contributes to an ongoing narrative that takes me to the point I was making before the intervention, and the inherent thesis that everyone who served at some stage did something wrong. I do not think that that is the case—in fact, I know for certain that it is not—but as I said yesterday, we cannot have a scenario in which just because someone wore a uniform, that means that any wrongdoing should not be investigated.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I thank her for her eloquence and advocacy. She communicated with such power, conviction and sense, and I thank her for what she has said. I thank all hon. Members, right hon. Members and gallant Members for the incredible contributions that have been made over the last two days. People have come to this vexed and troubling issue with a great deal of commitment and determination to get to the right outcome for a better future and a better understanding of the past, and I thank the hon. Lady for that.
I was not born in Northern Ireland, and I do not live there, but my grandparents were from Belfast. They were a Protestant and a Catholic who left for the perfect, peaceful idyll that is the west of Scotland. My maternal great-grandparents were from Carrickmacross in County Monaghan, and all my wife’s family are from Tyrone. That part of the world supplied the working-class labour that brought about the burgeoning iron and steel industry. Our connections and associations with the island of Ireland are deep, and there is a passion for people to see a positive outcome and resolution and to include the many working-class men who found themselves on the streets in Northern Ireland in their tender years. I thank again the hon. Member for Lagan Valley.
I welcome this Bill as an important improvement on the previous Government’s deeply flawed legacy Act. Repealing the conditional amnesty scheme and restoring civil proceedings are significant steps towards delivering truth, justice and accountability. I recognise the vital importance of treating former service personnel fairly, including by acknowledging the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which many served. I had the pleasure of being one of the founding members of the Royal British Legion’s Solicitors Group, which is pro bono. I have worked with service personnel at close quarters, and I am overwhelmed and overawed by their commitment and dedication to their duty.
It has been said in recent hours in this debate that nobody is questioning the performance of our service personnel who found themselves in that situation, and that it is not veterans against civilians. I met two senior retired Army officers last month—Lieutenant Colonel the Reverend Nicholas Mercer and Brigadier John Donnelly CBE—thanks to Amnesty International and the Centre for Military Justice. Both of them challenged the suggestion that British forces have faced a flood of vexatious litigation under the European convention on human rights, and I worry about the scaremongering that has been perpetrated in that regard. As Nicholas Mercer has argued, the application of the Human Rights Act is vital, because it means that the guilty can be held accountable and the innocent exonerated. That is an important principle. Human rights protections are not the enemy of fair treatment for veterans; they are part of what makes that fairness possible.
However, I must express my concerns. The Government have chosen to publish such a voluminous package of amendments with barely seven days’ notice and have given us just two days to consider them, and that is a concern. I am also concerned about some of the tonality, which has explicitly presented the Bill as providing additional legal protections and safeguards for veterans. Whatever the Government’s intentions, some of these measures may be viewed very differently by victims’ families, particularly those who spent decades seeking answers about the actions of the state and the circumstances in which their loved ones died. What is presented to veterans as reassurance may be experienced by those families as another barrier to justice.
That matters enormously. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to not only improve the legal framework for dealing with the past, but rebuild confidence among communities whose trust in the institutions of the state has been profoundly damaged by their experience of the troubles. He said yesterday—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the principle of the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation when the Public Office (Accountability) Bill passes. I hope he will intervene on me, because I am seeking some clarification. Surely the duty of candour will be imported into this legislation, not simply the principle.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is quite right that the Hillsborough Bill, as most people think of it, is still going through its processes in the House of Lords. As I have said to him privately, and will say again from the Dispatch Box, we want to mesh the duty of candour with this Bill once the Hillsborough Bill has completed its processes in the Lords. It would be premature for us to do it now before the Bill has finished its processes in the Lords, but yesterday, I committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—he is sitting next to my hon. Friend—that as soon as we have done that, I will work with him to make sure we get this right, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend as well. It is not just the principle; it is the concept. It is the duty of candour.
Andy McDonald
I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That is immensely helpful, but I revert to my point that in seeking to reassure one constituency, there is a risk of undermining the confidence of others—not only in the Government’s approach to reconciliation, but in their ability to secure truth, accountability and access to justice.
Most seriously, I fear that some of these proposals risk cutting across the detailed institutional safeguards established through the Good Friday agreement and the reforms that followed it. The first is Government new clause 50 and the Attorney General’s consent to prosecutions. That new clause would require the Attorney General’s consent before proceedings could be instituted for the most serious troubles-related offences. What is the compelling justification for introducing this additional political safeguard into the prosecution process? That question has been raised by other Members, and I join them in asking it. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it risks undermining a central reform arising from the Good Friday agreement. The 2000 criminal justice review specifically sought to protect prosecutorial independence by removing the Attorney General’s power to direct prosecutors in individual cases or on policy matters.
That reform was particularly important because of the history of political interference and concerns about the prosecution of members of the security forces during the conflict. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies evidential and public interest tests when deciding whether to prosecute. Why should a further decision now rest with a Government-appointed law officer who is potentially exposed to representations from ministerial colleagues? The de Silva report into the murder of Pat Finucane documented political pressure on the then Attorney General over the prosecution of state agent Brian Nelson. That history demonstrates precisely why those institutional safeguards were introduced.
Government new clause 50 also appears to impose no requirement on the Attorney General to explain a refusal of consent, while the availability of judicial review may be limited. How can families have confidence in a process where an independent prosecutor might conclude that a serious offence should be prosecuted, only for a Government law officer to prevent that prosecution without adequate explanation or scrutiny?
The Good Friday agreement was not simply a political declaration of peace and reconciliation. Its implementation required detailed reforms to institutions, including the criminal justice system, designed to establish independence and to instil public confidence. We have to tread with the greatest care not to undermine the Good Friday agreement in any way. We should be extremely cautious about disturbing those safeguards, particularly when it would risk reviving precisely the concerns that they were intended to address. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider new clause 50. Fairness for veterans must not mean creating a new mechanism through which serious criminality could escape prosecution.
Robin Swann
A number of Members have mentioned the Stormont House agreement in connection with the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval. My party opposed the agreement because of the provisions that brought about an amnesty by default for all but murderers; at that point, it became a flawed expedition. Let me return to my earlier question to the Secretary of State. Clause 72(5) states:
“The ICIR must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”
It also states, in paragraph (c), that the ICIR must not do anything that
“would risk having, or would have, a prejudicial effect on any actual or prospective legal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”
In response to my intervention, the Secretary of State said that he would try to find the answer to my question by the time I made my speech, so I will ask him again: who makes the assessment that something will be prejudicial to the national security of Ireland, or to a prospective legal proceeding in Ireland? That is not in the remit of this Government or this place; nor will it, or should it, be in the remit of the ICIR. As yet, we do not know who the body corporate will be, and who will be part of it. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has found the answer to my question, but if he has not, he may wish to write to me.
Chris Bryant
I have been inspired. Let me say first that national security is obviously a matter for the respective Governments, but in the UK, it is solely a matter for the UK. The provision in the Bill replicates the drafting of the ICIR treaty, which was signed by the UK Conservative Government and the Irish Government back in 2015. It also replicates the drafting of Ireland’s “General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”, which states:
“In performing its functions the ICIR shall not do anything that could reasonably be expected to…prejudice the national security interests of the State”—
the Irish state—
“or the United Kingdom”.
In other words, we look after our security, and they look after theirs.
Robin Swann
I fully appreciate that, but that is not what the Bill says. It says that the ICIR will make the decision. I have asked the Secretary of State who makes the assessment on behalf of the Irish Government of what constitutes national security. This is not solely about the United Kingdom. However, I will engage with the Secretary of State to seek clarification on that point.
The Secretary of State quoted what has been said previously; that does not explain to me what the Bill actually contains. He talks of the Irish Government and their role. I welcomed his comment in the past that the UK Government would work in lockstep with the Irish Government, but he is aware of the distrust that many of us feel about what the Irish Government will bring forward, and when they will do it. What plans does he have, in case they do not bring it forward? He has said that parts of the Bill will be enacted in lockstep with the Irish Government’s legislation, but what happens if they do not produce and enact it? Will he start to repeal parts of the Bill, or will the parts that have already been enacted still stand? I think I know the answer to that, but I am explaining our concern about the Irish Government acting in lockstep with the United Kingdom.
I see where the Government are going on this; that comes from the experience of having been involved in negotiations with the Irish Government—Stormont House, the fresh start, Haass-O’Sullivan and all those other things. At one stage, we were sitting in a room with Charlie Flanagan and Danny Kennedy, discussing what would come forward from the Irish Government about Kingsmill. The Kingsmill families were promised the release of Irish Government documentation, and what did they actually finish up with? A folder of newspaper clippings. That is where the inherent concern that many in Northern Ireland still have about what the Irish Government will release comes from—if, indeed, they release anything about the substantive cross-border incidents that we still want to raise concerns about. When the Secretary of State works with the Irish Government on this legislation, I hope he finds them more productive than any previous Government have been.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned what, in previous iterations of the Bill, was put forward as protections for veterans. We were told at one stage that those protections did not need to be in the legislation, because the Government said that there would be protections. I welcome the fact that those protections are now part of the legislation, but they are not solely for veterans, and I think it is important to clarify that.
When I met the Secretary of State to ask him about protections for our veterans, he said it was not his office but the Ministry of Defence—the corporate body—that would be the first port of call. However, what body acts on behalf of former RUC police officers? He has said—I know this is in the Bill—that there is a power to put that duty on a body, but no such body is specified for them. We are therefore looking at a dual process for these protections. I am thinking of the joint UDR and RUC operations—the joint vehicle checkpoints—that often took place. Whereas the UDR may get support via the Ministry of Defence, there is no body to support a former RUC officer who was standing at the same point, on the same duty, under the same threat, defending the same right of democracy in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State expedite the decision on what that body will be? What worries me is that this will fall on the voluntary organisations that are currently stepping up—the likes of the South East Fermanagh Foundation and, as mentioned previously, the Royal British Legion—to which veterans are already going for support.
The explanatory statement for new clause 51, which has been mentioned, states that the clause will prevent
“the stopping of a prosecution for reasons relating to the content of an ‘on the run’ letter.”
This provision still relates to the content of the letters. The issue is not that they cannot be relied on any longer; it is wrong that those letters exist. It would have been better if the Government had tabled an amendment that nullified those on-the-run letters, rather than simply saying that they will prevent the stopping of prosecutions for reasons relating to their content.
The remit of the Attorney General has been mentioned; a number of opponents have spoken about why the Attorney General should not have that role. We agree. What was proposed in the first iteration of the legislation was a panel of judges, rather than a political appointee. The provision involving the Attorney General is a replication of what is in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I again seek a reassurance from the Secretary of State that this Government are not by default looking at the troubles in Northern Ireland as an overseas operation. Parts of this legislation are starting to treat us very differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, when it comes to the atrocities.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for tabling new clause 12, which is about reconciliation. He has been a champion of reconciliation. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is now doing a serious piece of work on what that would actually look like. The Bill expands the scope of who could and should be involved not just in the work of the Committee, but in the work of the Government to bring forward what reconciliation in Northern Ireland truly looks like.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted me and spoken to me about the Bill and the amendments, and to thank all those who have served and who are in the Gallery today.
I was surprised not to have received more correspondence from local veterans about the Bill. I do not think that is because they are not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with the Bill. I fear that for some it is because confidence has been worn down over many years. They have heard assurances before and they have been misled by those trying to score political points. Too often they have experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that they did not feel was designed for them.
New clauses 49 and 50, and yesterday’s amendments, will, I hope, start to rebuild some of that trust. In the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday, he recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace and that, equally, justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community. I particularly welcome the Government’s efforts to address long-standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have, quite rightly, argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. Personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken, and the pain and the agony that has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past.
We must also honour our current serving personnel, and our cadets and future cadets, the men and women who will serve our country. Although it is not related to the Bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise—in my city, in Government data or in Government policy—the picture painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). I am the proud mum of serving personnel. The work we have done as a Government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes to their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented them. Those members of the armed forces are proud to serve their King and their country. They are what we call patriotic.
I also need to set the record straight so that people can see that the previous Government left a legacy Act in 2023 that made false and undeliverable promises, which left veterans in legal limbo and which could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist groups. That was not okay and they should be sorry for that, too.
I know that this Government do not believe there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and indefensible acts of terrorism. It is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving. To be fair, the majority of the debate in this Chamber has been conducted in that way. I welcome the contributions from across the House and I am proud to be a part of this debate. This is a challenging area that was left unworkable. This Government have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further, but I recognise that we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points.
The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split-second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend. Any process examining actions taken during the troubles must, therefore, take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), I am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we have had to review them, but I welcome the Government’s determination to ensure that the operational context is reflected in the legislation.
I also welcome the Government’s amendment 240, which is intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns that I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. That is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly.
Many veterans are now elderly, and some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible. Amendment 277 would widen the definition of family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents.
Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that the safeguarding that Parliament intends is clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence that they will not face repeated investigations. We see that in the wording of amendment of 240. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on where the bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published, how veterans will be able to understand whether the test has been met, what assurance will they receive that an early investigation will be properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long it will be before new evidence is brought.
The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called about events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence, so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, and anonymity may be requested. Decision makers will have to consider the person’s age, health and wellbeing—all things that were made important to me. I was pleased to see that addressed in amendments yesterday.
I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that the support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and that veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. It cannot become a new procedure to be followed; veterans and their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout the process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) so eloquently put it, we must avoid framing the debate as veterans versus victims’ families, because in many cases those categories overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well. Service personnel were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict.
No legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles will satisfy everyone—the wounds are too deep and the experiences too varied for that—but I believe the Government have moved significantly towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Government Ministers and my veteran community. Although not perfect, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, the Bill is a last chance for something that is needed.
From the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the unique role played by those who serve, their commitment to ensuring that operational realities are properly considered and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition, while continuing to pursue truth and accountability.
We all know that for too long it has been empty promises and words on a page. Veterans will and should judge the Bill by not the promises made about it, but their experiences of the system it creates. We therefore have a continuing responsibility, in this place and the other, to listen to them, explain the changes honestly, and ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice for all who have been affected.
Jim Allister
The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests. It is not that there is no good in the Bill; it is a question in many instances of the balance, or lack of balance, that it strikes.
Indeed, one of the fundamental failures of the Bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous terrorist attack in Northern Ireland, in terms of the number of victims, was the Omagh bomb, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in the Bill that excludes investigation of that bombing by the legacy commission. One of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was at Loughgall, where eight heavily armed IRA terrorists came to destroy a police station, with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a vanload of terrorists to shoot up the station, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to include that attack within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests.
On the one hand, the Secretary of State excludes Omagh from the framework of the Bill; on the other hand, he includes within it the most audacious of the IRA attacks, giving the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to a full inquest, and then he proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests. It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community.
There can be no case more undeserving of an inquest than Loughgall, which involved hardened terrorists with dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), under the leadership of Patrick Kelly and Lynagh, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists, who had already carried out a carbon-copy attack on Ballygawley police station, and then on the Birches. At Ballygawley they had murdered police officers. At Loughgall they came at the particular hour when they knew policemen would be leaving at the end of their shift. Their bomb was concealed in rubble in the bucket of a digger, and they had a load of terrorists to shoot up the station and repeat what they had done at Ballygawley and the Birches.
Happily—yes, happily—they met the SAS. Happily, the SAS ensured that they would never murder again. In that, the SAS saved countless lives, because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. In 2017, declassified documents from ballistic tests showed that their weapons had been used in between 40 and 50 murders. These were not boy scouts on an outing; they were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and kill. When they were dealt with as they ought to have been, what do the Government do? They say, “Oh, we will give you a special place within our legacy Bill—a special protection—so that your families will have what other families will not. You will have a full-blown inquest at public expense. It will cost whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aid all of you to be represented so that you can try to pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers.”
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Today, I think of the service personnel in Falkirk and the veterans who served in Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Whenever I have had the chance to speak to them about this issue, or more broadly about the issues affecting veterans, the armed forces and defence spending in my constituency, I am reminded of the depth of their character, the depth of their service and their overwhelming sense of duty. They are representative of the more than 300,000 veterans of Operation Banner.
I believe that it is a duty not just to think about this matter from a constituency standpoint but to think of the people of Northern Ireland. It is especially incumbent on Back Benchers from other parts of the United Kingdom to remind ourselves that they must be treated as full and equal citizens of our United Kingdom, entitled to rely on the rule of law, our shared democratic institutions and access to justice.
Of the Government’s amendments, those closest to my mind are those that strengthen the protection of Operation Banner veterans in our constituencies. We should never forget, as I think a few Members have rightly commented, that those veterans and their families are victims of the troubles as well. We should avoid drawing a false distinction between service families and an associated other of victims. That is important principally because, if we do not, it reduces the status of those murdered in Northern Ireland from the community and from our armed forces, and impedes those victims’ right to access justice.
Though I am aware that this is not being considered today, I want to rebut the point that operational context is not touched upon in the Bill. New clause 32 tabled by the Government, as the Secretary of State referred to, requires the legacy commission to recognise the circumstances in which the armed forces and police served and the split-second decisions they took. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how that will take into consideration the chain of command? That question has come up among veterans in my constituency and from Members across the Committee.
To allow us to get to the summing-up speeches, I will speak briefly on new clauses 51 and 50, which address some of the concerns that I have heard from veterans groups in my constituency. New clause 51 makes clear that no one can rely on an on-the-run letter in criminal proceedings against them. Of the issues that veterans brought up—I want to touch on every single group but especially the excellent and fantastic Veterans Together (Forth Valley)—that was one that evoked the strongest anger among people. The mere ambiguity surrounding the letters and the idea that a scrap of paper could leave those suspected of a terrorist offence being comforted back to the United Kingdom, thinking that they were immune from prosecution, elicited anger. I am glad that it is this Labour Government who are decisively ending the ambiguity around those letters.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I support new clause 50 in principle—that the Attorney General must consent to any prosecution for any serious troubles-related offence. I hear from veterans that trust in the process is at such a low ebb among their community, and so I believe that placing the decision in the hands of a senior, democratically accountable law officer in this country provides Government accountability and the right degree of independence and accountability generally, enabling us to build confidence that any prosecutions are in the public interest.
On summing up, will the Secretary of State set out how that safeguard will support the Government’s commitment to protecting the public interest where there may be a dispute about the high evidential bar and whether it has been met, especially considering the historical and complex nature of evidence that remains? Will he also assure the House that the Attorney General’s role is designed to prevent any political interference, so that no Government, now or in future, may use it to politicise decisions about the evidence and public interest, which must be taken with the utmost seriousness?
The Bill provides the last chance for many in our community, including service families, to access the truth about what happened to their loved ones in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, I believe it enables us to implement real and tangible protections for veterans that the ineffective and unlawful immunity scheme, which the previous Government failed to deliver, utterly did not implement. As it represents a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as it represents a strengthening of the position of veterans and as, more than anything, it allows us to progress, I will vote for the Bill this evening.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee for having to leave the Chamber earlier to attend a debate in Westminster Hall. It was about Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their homes, so that is why I attended.
I have tabled amendments 106 and 107, and they relate to the part of the Bill on interim custody orders. I do not want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications and the decisions that were taken at that stage. I tabled these amendments because I am anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to article 7 of the European convention on human rights. I want to read the article into the record. It deals with “No punishment without law” and it states:
“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.”
I find it difficult to understand how clauses 89 and 90 of the Bill comply with article 7. The reason I say that is that, once we start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters. I refer Members to subsection (4) in clause 89, which is bizarre, to say the least. It states:
“This section is to be treated as always having had effect.”
We are inventing a historical precedent; we are creating a truth when there is actually an untruth within the legislation itself. We need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It flies in the face of the ECHR, and I will be interested to know how the Government square that argument and consider that it will not be open to challenge at a later date.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Minister—sorry, the Secretary of State.
Chris Bryant
And Minister, indeed. Thank you, Ms Nokes. It is good to see you in the Chair, as always.
First, can I just refer to the points where I think we are all agreed? There has, remarkably, been quite a lot of agreement, both yesterday and today, on a series of things. First, on the issue of on-the-run letters, I note the point made earlier by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and his gratitude for finally putting the provision in legislation. That matter was raised by several hon. Members.
I am grateful to those who agree that it is important that we will not start any new inquests once the legacy commission has completed its work. The legacy commission will have five years in which people can still make applications to it and five years to complete its work, but at the end of that period it surely must be right that we do not then start any more inquests. There has to come a time at which this process comes to an end.
I am also grateful to everybody who has recognised that we want to work in lockstep with the Irish Government—not running ahead of them, not running behind them, but working in lockstep with them—because it is only when we get full co-operation between the two Governments that we will be able to deliver the kind of answers that lots of hon. Members have been referring to. [Interruption.] I understand that there is scepticism around the Committee. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is chuntering from the Front Bench again, is full of scepticism on nearly everything related to this Government. In fact, I sometimes think, when I see him sitting there, that he could probably have a row with himself if he was stuck inside a cardboard box all on his own. On these occasions, though, there are quite a few things on which we agree, and that is where I am trying to start my remarks.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). He is right: these debates yesterday and today have proceeded much more amicably and respectfully than people had perhaps anticipated. I think that is probably because they have been informed by many different perspectives, including from those who have been around for many years in this House, those who have served, those who have never served before, those who have direct experience of living in Northern Ireland and those who have many constituents who have served in Northern Ireland. There have been many different perspectives, and many different political perspectives. That is important but, of course, in the words of her late Majesty, “some recollections may vary”. Today I have heard various accounts, from different perspectives, of almost identical occasions. That has informed our debate rather than undermined it.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State misses the point. All that information sharing, which is permitted and is in the gift of those authorities, is about answering the question before the inquiry: whether UK state authorities could have prevented the atrocity. That does not deal with the other side of the coin, which is whether the Irish authorities had information that could have prevented the atrocity. That can be dealt with in one of two ways: a parallel inquiry in the south—that is before the courts again today, because they refused to give it—or, at least, the fail-safe mechanism of the legacy commission being able to consider the case. The Secretary of State is right that this issue was for yesterday, but he raises it because he recognises the cross-border nature of the legacy commission’s ability to take information from the Irish Government.
Chris Bryant
We are relitigating a case that was decided yesterday, as I have said. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) argued that our Bill was unbalanced because somehow or other we were deprioritising the situation in Omagh. There is actually a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and it would be inappropriate to put the matter into the legacy commission. It is important that we let the independent inquiry do its work, as with the inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and that into the killing of Robert Hamill, which recently published its findings after a very long period.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East also tabled amendment 32, which I think he intends to press to a vote in a few short moments, and I want to speak to that briefly. I think it falls at the first hurdle because, as he said in his speech, it would be inappropriate for us to have measures that apply only to one category of people. We do not believe that it is right that only veterans can benefit from protection from repeated investigation. We want a legacy framework which, while rightly focused on getting information for families, does so in a way that does not needlessly duplicate aspects of investigations that have already obtained valuable information. That does not serve anyone—not victims, not witnesses and not the legacy commission, which will want to ensure that its resources are used as efficiently as possible. The collection of protections that the Government have put forward were designed following consultation with veterans—that is true—and were not included in the legacy Act. All these measures have been introduced to protect and ensure the fair treatment of any veteran who is asked to engage with legacy mechanisms. For those reasons, I will be opposing his amendment 32.
Turning to amendment 51 by my beknighted friend the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), on which I think he also intends to have a separate Division, I understand the anxiety and concerns there are. This is one of the classic instances where there are multiple views on how we should proceed. As he will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment—it is something we committed to before the general election and as part of our manifesto—to restore those inquests that were in progress but were halted by the legacy Act, and we intend to deliver on that commitment. On one of the reasons for that, I can quote Andy Seaman, the brother of Private Tony Harrison, who was murdered by the IRA in 1991. He said:
“My brother’s case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed. The opposition”
—that is, the Conservative party—
“cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims’ families—including military victims—when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite”.
Respect for veterans and accountability are not opposing principles. They are both part of the same principle: the rule of law. We are not opening a new inquest into Loughgall; we are restoring the inquest that was under way as a result of being directed by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), to comply with our human rights obligations. He said in September 2015:
“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”
There are two other issues which I think Members intend for us to vote on. The first is new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State. I understand the thrust of what he is trying to say, though, as he himself pointed out, recruitment into the armed forces is up now for the first time in about a decade. It is up 7% in general and the outflow is down by about 7%, all of which is good. I do not think anybody in the House wants to undermine the thrust of getting more people serving in the armed forces. I am absolutely certain that he would not expect us to be specific about the numbers in special forces. More importantly, his amendment is cobbled together in a rather bizarre way. The idea of setting up a new person to investigate recruitment and the legislation on recruitment, as he has put it in his amendment, is inappropriate, which is why we are not intending to support his amendment.
Alex Burghart
I understand the Secretary of State is not going to support our amendment. However, I hope that he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being pressure on special forces. Can he give a Dispatch Box commitment that he will establish a process whereby, for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee can be given regular updates on recruitment and retention within special forces? This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I would like to understand why he will not make this small concession.
Chris Bryant
Because it is not germane to the matter that we are considering today—
Chris Bryant
No, it is not germane. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman and simply say to him that I think it is inappropriate to try to make some false equation between the legislation we are considering today and the specifics of recruitment into the special forces.
Chris Bryant
If he is going to continue making those kinds of arguments, I think he will undermine himself.
Alex Burghart
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to all the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members of the special forces. He is not arguing against me; he is arguing against them, and I strongly encourage him to reconsider.
Chris Bryant
I know the shadow Secretary of State is getting himself worked up about this argument. I do not think he really believes the argument that he is advancing. [Interruption.] I read it rather differently.
The truth of the matter is that I have met with the Special Forces Association, as have both the Ministers who are here beside me—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I have spoken to a large number of those who have served, and they are very keen to make sure we have a Bill that is balanced and fair. That is precisely what we are going to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said, it does us no favours when we exaggerate and seek to undermine recruitment into the armed forces, in particular into the special forces.
Mr Francois
Because you know you are wrong. I am the shadow Veterans Minister.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. The Secretary of State is not obliged to give way.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak.
Al Carns
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. The reality is that, across the conventional force, we have seen an uptick in recruitment and a reduction in people leaving due to retention issues. It is the first time in 10 to 14 years that we have seen an increase—it is a huge success. We have to be careful of conflating two things that are going on within a more specialist community. One is a Northern Ireland Bill, which, whether we like it or not, does not resonate with the rank and file of the individuals in our community, and one is other inquests and inquiries that in some cases do. We need to keep a very close eye on that in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure the Secretary of State will work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure we are monitoring it and putting remedial action in place, should that be the case.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: it is important not to conflate things that do not necessarily belong together. Being able to fillet through the different aspects of what affects recruitment is what really ends up delivering results, and that is absolutely the role of the Ministry of Defence. The Minister for Veterans and People is sitting on the Front Bench, and that is one of the things he has in mind.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, has tabled new clause 12, which I think he intends to push to a vote. It would impose a new duty to promote reconciliation on the Secretary of State and require the Secretary of State to
“publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland”.
I have tabled quite a few of these kinds of amendments in the past, and I never expected or really wanted the Secretary of State to take them on. I suspect that this is a probing amendment. Clause 11(1) of the Bill already explicitly requires the legacy commission and its individual members to exercise their functions in a way that is consistent with
“the principle that reconciliation should be promoted”,
and that is precisely what we intend to do.
Two other issues have been of particular concern. One is the word “essential”. The Bill states that there should be no duplication of a process that has already been undergone elsewhere, either in an inquest or in the legacy commission. That is a really important part of what we are doing. The previous legislation introduced by the Conservatives used a lower bar—namely, the word “necessary”. We think “essential” is a higher bar. I hear the comments that Members have made about their not being convinced by that, and this is one of the issues I am sure we will want to return to in the House of Lords.
The other issue is compelling new evidence. One of the key asks that was put to me on a regular basis was ensuring that, before anybody could be interviewed as a witness or brought before the legacy commission, there had to be compelling new evidence. I completely agree, which is precisely why that is one of the measures we have included in the Bill. I think we have put it in the right place in the Bill, rather than right at the beginning.
The final point on which there is quite a bit of disagreement is the role of the Attorney General. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both said that they disagree with that role, and other Members are pulling me in different directions because they are not entirely convinced about it. I want to make it clear that the Attorney General is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. We are not seeking to undermine in any sense the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, and it would be completely inappropriate for the Attorney General to bear in mind at all any political considerations when making a prosecutorial decision. The only thing they are able to bear in mind is the traditional prosecutorial issue of whether there is a more than 50% chance of a successful prosecution and a conviction, and whether prosecution is in the public interest. I think that the measures will provide a greater sense of reassurance that there will be consistency across the piece.
Chris Bryant
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to start by expressing my very sincere thanks to the team who have been working on the Bill for some considerable time: Daniel Thrower, Charlotte Brennan, Sharon Carter, Niall Haughey, Philip Shaw, Will Durkin and the whole legacy team in the Northern Ireland Office. My thanks also to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is sitting by my side; the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); and, of course, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who brought in this Bill in the first place. I pay tribute to every single one of them.
We normally associate “legacy” with our inheritance from our parents or our ancestors. In some cases, it means wealth or property, or perhaps a family tradition that has been handed down through the generations—something that one family does differently from another. For most, our common legacy is a positive thing; it could be a sense of our shared history, or our national pride in the things that we do phenomenally well: our national health service, perhaps, or our storytellers, authors, playwrights and musicians, our bravery in two world wars, or our armed forces.
But the legacy in Northern Ireland is different. In many ways, it is a legacy of division, antagonism, sectarianism, and violence. It is a legacy of extraordinary trauma. In Greek, “trauma” originally meant a wound, but it means so much more. It is an open wound, in many cases. It is the wound felt by a woman who lost her brother, an RUC officer, years ago, and has nightmares all the time about how he died; by the man who goes to Marks & Spencer every day and sees the man who he knows killed his father, who served in the armed forces; by the man who gave up his college music course to join the Army when his brother was blown up, and still worries that he has never lived up to his brother, because he never found out precisely what happened to him when he was killed; by the young woman who worries that she cannot even remember her daddy, who was killed when she was so young that she cannot even remember his face, and she feels guilty about it; by the teenager who sees photos of his grandaddy, who was murdered by the IRA before he was born, every single time the troubles are reported on the news; or by the family who still have not located the body of the family member they know was killed.
Patrick Keefe, in “Say Nothing”, wrote this:
“Perhaps the cruellest feature of forced disappearance as an instrument of war is that it denies the bereaved any such closure, relegating them to a permanent limbo of uncertainty.”
I felt that so strongly recently, when I had the deeply sobering experience of visiting an active dig by the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains at Derryclone in County Antrim, where the commission’s dedicated investigators are to this day searching for the remains of Seamus Maguire. Seamus was just 26 years old when he was disappeared in Lurgan in 1973. My thoughts are, of course, with the Maguire family, as well as with the families of Columba McVeigh, Joseph Lynskey and Robert Nairac, who await the return of their loved ones. That is a phenomenal trauma that still lives in many families’ lives. When their loved ones had been disappeared, they still got letters from people pretending to be them—a particular form of cruelty.
When people say to me that people in Northern Ireland need to move on, my answer is no. No one has moved on more than the victims and survivors of the troubles. They are not living in the past; they are living with the past. If the trauma is not resolved and people do not get answers, it will pass on to the next generation.
I know that lots of people do not support every clause of this Bill—some do not support any clause it—but I relay the words of the Royal British Legion this week:
“Veterans and those Armed Forces families who lost loved ones in the conflict deserve answers. It is in the interests of the whole of Armed Forces community affected by the Troubles that steady progress is made to ensure this legislation’s provisions are effective.”
Although much of the debate yesterday and today has been about veterans, this is primarily about families. As Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland, said:
“As parliamentarians you have the opportunity to provide legislation that puts victims and survivors at the heart of the new Bill and also provides mechanisms that will give confidence to victims and survivors who have waited too long. Their voices must shape and determine what happens next.”
I want to explain briefly why this really matters to me. Back in 1986, I was one of the first British people to be in Argentina after the dictatorship came to an end. Many of my friends had been tortured. I knew that they had been tortured—they spoke about it. One night, I went to a bar with a friend of mine. He went to the loo, and he stayed there for a very long time. I wondered what was happening, so I went to find him. He was lying on the floor in the cubicle in floods of tears, because, he said, the man standing next to us at the bar was the man who had tortured him systematically for two months, several years earlier. I said to him, “How can you possibly know? You always told me that you were blindfolded throughout.” He said, “Well, when somebody pushes your head down into shitty, icy cold water until you nearly drown five times a day, and when they apply electrodes to your genitals three times a day, you get to know them by the way they breathe, by the way they walk into the room, by the tenor of their voice. And I know that man is the man who tortured me.” That story is from a long time ago and from a different country, but I have met people in Northern Ireland who have faced exactly the same. Those people have never had an answer. They have never had a moment when what happened to them and their loved ones has even been recognised in the public domain.
This Bill is not about one group or another. It is not about special favours for one group or another. It is about honesty, candour, the pursuit of justice and, most importantly, truth, because in the end, only truth can really set us free.
Alex Burghart
It has been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days, and to hear some fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and on all sides of the argument. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the moving story that he just told about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we have been debating for two years, but I do not want to do that. I think the House knows how the Conservative party feels about the Bill, but I want to try to take things forward. To do that, I want to take us back to what the last Government tried to do in 2022 with the legacy Act, which set up the ICRIR, with the intention of enabling people to come forward and give information that would bring some solace to victims and their families. Some of those victims were soldiers; most of them were obviously members of the public—people from all communities. At the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles inquests and civil cases and so on.
When this Government won the election and came to power in 2024, it was in their manifesto that they wanted to address the concerns with the legislation relating to the European convention on human rights, and wanted to get public confidence in the ICRIR. I am not asking the Labour party to move its position on the ECHR—I know what its positions are, and I know that it will put the amendments in question through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR as constituted by the Conservative party is working.
I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), yesterday quoted from the first report that the ICRIR published about the murder of Rory O’Kelly. His daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said in incredibly moving and, indeed, poetic terms that it had moved the family
“into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.”
That is what I am proud to say the institution established by the last Government has managed to do. I am pleased to say that now, in 2026, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR and 123 investigations under way. We believe that it is working.
There are two issues that I hope the Government will consider as this Bill moves into the Lords, and the Secretary of State has touched on them. The first is about the bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on “essential” and “new and compelling”. It is very clear from the legal evidence that we have seen that “essential” is not the bar that he intends it to be. As has been said to us by leading legal advisers and King’s counsel, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence, so there is no “essential” bar, and the “essential” in the legislation is not defined there, so that will be expanded on and contested. The term “new and compelling”, however, does exactly what it promises. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. It is a legal term that has certainty. It is not subjective. The evidence must be new as a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, in a way that will impact the outcome. I encourage the Government, as we move into the Lords, to consider this matter again, because I think we are trying to achieve the same thing, but obviously we believe that “new and compelling” will be much more effective.
The second issue is what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. He says that he wants to see an end to rinse and repeat investigations, and we would dearly like him to succeed in that. The veterans groups who have been analysing and scrutinising this Bill do not feel that the legislation will achieve that, and we agree with them. At the moment there are no veterans groups that support the Bill as it stands.
As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) said, Loughgall, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995 and 2001, and because of this Government’s decision, it will go before an inquest again. That is rinse and repeat.
There is a way of doing this differently, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I am pleased to see in his position, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the legacy commission, so that everything is going down the same route. The Secretary of State rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance. That imbalance was drawn out powerfully by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who said that when we compare what is happening with Omagh to what will happen with Loughgall, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out.
I raise both those overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Although we would rather the Government were not undertaking this Bill, we believe that if they make the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative party but by colleagues throughout the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, by the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from within the Labour party, this Bill can be made stronger on its own terms.
Hilary Benn
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which he has handled these two days of Committee consideration with such skill, grace and understanding. The fact that the temperature and the temper of the debate over the past two days have been markedly different from that which we experienced previously is, as I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday, a sign that the Government have listened, and that point has been recognised. I join the Secretary of State in thanking the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office and other Government Departments for all the work that they have done on the Bill. They are as fine a group of civil servants as I have had the privilege to work with.
I mentioned yesterday my first visit to WAVE, when Sandra Peake, that wonderful human being, sat me down and said, “Hilary, one of the things that you need to understand is how intimate the violence was in Northern Ireland.” The story that we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—indeed, the stories we have heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members over the past two days, and over the past 28 years—is proof of that. But today is a chance to recognise that this issue can now finally move on. I have said to the House many times that if dealing with legacy was easy, we would have done so a long time ago. It isn’t. It is really, really difficult; it is really, really hard.
The last group of people I want to thank are all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for the contributions they have made, because responsibility falls on all of us to get this right in the interests of the people who sent us here to represent them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Kohler
I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart): it has been a huge honour to be part of this debate over the past two days. I have heard so many profound, moving and thoughtful speeches—it has said so much about this House. I thank the brave veterans who did so much during Operation Banner to preserve the rule of law and keep people safe.
I also say this to every victim: I hope you find the solace you require, the truth you demand and the justice you deserve. Those things are utterly important. I thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for the constructive approach they have taken throughout. We often disagree, but he has always been helpful and constructive, which means a lot to everyone in this House. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill, because it our view it still does not do enough to protect veterans or to promote reconciliation and justice for victims. For that reason, we hope that more will happen during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Much can be done to improve the Bill, and I hope the Government are still listening.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today at oral questions, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), gave the impression that I had already had a discussion with her in respect of a fire notice and a Care Quality Commission notice, when in fact those notices had not been issued at the time I met her on 9 September. I am concerned that the Minister could have inadvertently misled the Chamber. I would welcome some guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He will know that the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ remarks in the Chamber, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments and that if a correction is needed, one will be made.
Petition
East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission to speak on a matter that is of crucial importance to my constituents. The topic of this Adjournment debate is the impact of the East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge business case on North Bedfordshire constituency. I am very grateful to the Minister for being in his place; I have not have a chance to share some of my questions with him, so I would be very happy for him to write to me after the debate if he does not have answers to them tonight.
What does East West Rail mean to North Bedfordshire? It is an opportunity that was lost. The concept of connecting Oxford through Milton Keynes to Bedford and Cambridge is a sensible one, but sadly it is a concept that in practice has gone very far off track. That is partly due to the legacy of the former Liberal Democrat mayor of Bedford borough, who supported a route through the town of Bedford and then north through rural North Bedfordshire. That route is long, hilly and incredibly environmentally damaging, and despite protestations, it must surely be much more expensive than any alternative. It has left my constituents scratching their heads about why we would build a railway line in such a damaging way.
Since that time, my constituents across North Bedfordshire have faced a series of questions that remain unanswered and that are increasingly a source of irritation. The people who work at East West Rail are good people, and I have nothing against them, but I do have something against the project and how it is being progressed. The town of Clapham, just outside Bedford, will be cut in two by the development of the railway. The route takes a very sharp turn out of Bedford and goes up a hill, as part of the hilliness of this railway. Residents’ concerns about having a green tunnel to help somewhat with the environment stay in abatement. The villagers of Ravensden and Wilden are sadly getting increasingly resigned to the fact that a railway will carve through their rural landscape. At Chawston, which is a tiny little village, a substantial amount of land has been earmarked by East West Rail so that trains can pass. Finally, there are the villages of Roxton and then Tempsford, which is rumoured to be on the list to be a new town. Currently it is a village of 300 households.
For North Bedfordshire, this railway will have a significant impact on the environment and on our rural life, but beyond that, the business case matters for a range of reasons. First, a substantial amount of public money—in the billions—will be invested to construct an entirely new rail route from Bedford through to Cambridge. As the Minister will know, we are just a week away from a Budget. It is perhaps the third Budget in a row where a Labour Government will come back for more taxes. He will know, as we certainly do, that looking after public money is a primary duty of us here in this House. If we are seeing a waste of public money, it requires as much additional scrutiny as can be done—certainly in government, but also beyond—and yet it has been a number of years since the last assessment of the economics of East West Rail was delivered by the company that was available for us to scrutinise. Incidentally, that assessment was pretty bad. When I say pretty bad, I mean bad, bad, bad from the point of view of public finances. Since then, there have been dramatic changes, and some that might help the case of East West Rail, but many—particularly with inflation—may move things the other way. My constituents are left in a position where they do not know whether this project will make any economic sense at all, and it started from a position where it clearly did not.
I do not think that it is right that the people of North Bedfordshire should be left in the dark. I also, by the way, do not think that taxpayers should be left in the dark. That is why my purpose tonight is to convince the Minister that he and the Government owe it to the people of North Bedfordshire and to taxpayers to provide right now—tomorrow will do—the latest updated business case for the East West Rail project. The Minister covers lots of other forms of transportation and covers for rail for Lord Hendy in the other place, but he must know the importance that has been attributed to financial transparency in our rail projects specifically, and know not to wait until the deal is done. This is my key request to the Minister. I would like him to say that he has been convinced by the arguments about public money and that he has been convinced that allowing transparency of the business case is the right thing to do. It is his right and ability to do that, and I will explain to him why he should do it.
First, this point of transparency was surely at the heart of the reviews of the oh-so-disastrously-managed HS2 project. You will remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do I. Frankly, the taxpayers of this country will remember it for a long time. Rightly, Governments of the day had two reviews—Oakervee and Lovegrove—to try to find out how we could improve governance of our very important rail projects. I would like to go through some of that, because, sadly, it does not seem that Government have got the message on these things. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts.
In the Lovegrove report, there was a response to a request that was made by local campaigners in July for the Government to release the business case. Annex A of the letter from the Government refusing the release said that while the outline business case was still being developed, releasing it would “be misleading” and that disclosure would produce “a chilling effect” on discussions between the Department for Transport, Network Rail and East West Rail. So providing information about the business case would be “misleading”. Well, who is it going to mislead? Do the Government think we are not smart enough to understand that numbers may change, and inputs may not remain the same in terms of their costs? Do they think we will not understand the numbers? It seems to me an unusual defence to say that providing the British people with information about how their taxes might be spent before those taxes are committed is somehow misleading—and what is the “chilling effect”? I do not see loads of private companies rushing up to provide competing rail services from Oxford to Cambridge. It does not hang together.
According to one of the campaigners,
“Lovegrove’s account of HS2’s Accounting Officer Assessments in 2019 describes a Department that kept spending money on an unaffordable project ‘on the basis that a process to determine its future was underway,’ while systematically failing to make clear to Parliament how immature the underlying costings actually were. He goes further, describing how the HS2 Board’s own information packs created ‘a veil behind which less good news becomes difficult to assess or even identify’—and that this was still true two years later, in 2021. The consequence, in his words, is that ‘the Civil Service failed to recognise the scale of the remaining intrinsic risk’ and gave ministers advice that ‘fails to give a good sense of the scale of the uncertainty.’”
It is clear to me that the lesson from HS2 is that it is in the best interests of the Government to share information as a project is undergoing an evaluation of its financial costs, precisely so that the Government can avoid some of the mistakes that were identified in the HS2 project. If it was important for HS2, it is even more important for East West Rail, perhaps not in terms of scale but certainly in terms of relative lack of value.
One of the ways in which the Government assess the value is through the benefit-cost ratio framework, and we do have information about that, dating back to 2023. Let me explain this to the House. A benefit-cost ratio of less than 1 is “poor”. There is nothing below “poor”. “Low” is 1 to 1.5, “medium” is 1.5 to 2, “high” is 2 to 4, and “very high” is greater than 4. When time is tight, public money is important, and one would hope that most of the projects are closer to the 4, 3 or 2. So where did East West Rail stand at the last count? Well, it did not stand at 4, or 3, or 2, or 1; it stood at 0.3. Basically, this is a railway project that wastes 70p in every pound, which is clearly “poor”. The East West Railway Company then came up with something called the theory of change to push the figure up—we can understand that; like other things, employment changes, new houses are built and so forth—which boosted it from 0.3 to 0.6.
It is clear from the last time the public were given sight of the business case that this railway line project is extremely poor value for money. I think that that should concern the Minister, and it certainly concerns me. Over time, the milestones for the benefit-cost ratio got worse. In 2019, the benefit-cost ratio was 1.1 to 2.4. Now it is down to 0.3, although potentially it could be raised to 0.5 and potentially to above 1, so it is not doing very well on an absolute basis. An argument may be made that there is a social benefit to railways that goes beyond the financial benefit-cost ratio. Governments of all stripes—not just this lot; it was my lot before—have, as it were, counted other things in already. Perhaps it is possible to stretch it and say that there is even more public benefit, and I will come to what that may be in a minute. This is why the benefit-cost ratio causes even more concern.
Let us just take a wander down the benefit-cost ratios of Britain’s railway projects in the recent past, so we can see whether East West Rail is an outlier or part of the pack with the usual returns. The benefit-cost ratio of HS2 was originally 2.3; it is 1.5 to 2.3. HS2 phase 1—the London to Birmingham part—had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.7, which is getting close, but is still four times the benefit-cost ratio of East West Rail. For Crossrail 2, it is 1.7 to 2.7—way ahead. For the Bakerloo line extension, it is 2 to 3, and for Sutton tram link extension, it is 1.3. I challenge the Minister to find a railway project that is such a grotesque waste of public money as East West Rail. I do not think he will.
This matters, because being honest about public money matters. We should be honest when something sounds like a really good idea, but when we actually put our mind to it and do the detailed work, it starts to look like a really bad idea. We really should have the courage—we need to have the courage in this House—and the Minister and the Government must have the courage to go back to first principles and say, “We just don’t want to be part of continuing something that has started to look completely wrong.” Year after year, I make the case to Ministers of all parties to have that moment of courage of going back to first principles. Their first principle is that they should look after public money as though it is their own, rather than just fritter it away because someone else in the past said it was a good idea, and perhaps that is the consensus, so we have to stick with it because someone said. That is no way to have our Executive run this country, because it just leads us into all sorts of mistakes. My hope is that the Minister will be that man of courage. I look at him and I think, “I am in with a fighting chance.”
In that spirit, I have some questions for the Minister. As I said earlier, I do accept—I did not have the chance to brief the Minister beforehand—that he may not have the answers to hand, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me. First, when the last business case was produced, the Government used a discount rate of 3.5%. The Treasury has now decided to lower that discount rate to 3%. As the Minister will be aware, if we lower the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%, we will give more credit to revenues in the future relative to costs in the near term, which is clearly the profile for a rail project. Will the Minister commit that when, and I hope it will be tomorrow, he publishes the current business case, the financial case or full cash projections—I do not mind which of those three options he chooses—he will in all those cases ensure he has provided the information so that a like-for-like comparison can be made? Basically, we need the numbers for the period in which he is discounting the costs and revenues, so that we can assess the impact of the change in the discount rate.
Secondly, in coming to Bedfordshire the wonderful initiative of Universal Studios has an impact on East West Rail and vice versa. As I understand it, to handle the structural demand, Network Rail has lined up an estimated £650 million of funding to help with the track capacity extension required. That takes us back to the decision in 2020, when there was a straighter, more direct route south of Bedford, and there was going to be a station—a hub station—at Wixams. Now that Universal Studios is being built at Wixams, would it not make sense to look at creating that hub station for Wixams, rather than going into the town of Bedford and going north? This is a very significant change, and Universal Studios is going to have 10 million visitors a year.
Tempsford may or may not be a new town, but taking a village of 300 people and building a town of 100,000 is big change. One of the problems is that East West Rail, desperate to justify its business case, may want to take credit for new housing growth at Tempsford. Frankly, I do not think East West Rail contributes very much—certainly not in the near term—to the growth of Tempsford, because that planning has been there for quite a long time. Will the Minister commit to ensure that the case for East West Rail is made to stand on its own merits, rather than trying, artificially and in my view wrongly, to claim benefits from other measures, such as Tempsford new town?
East West Rail has built part of its railway. It has built the part from Oxford to Milton Keynes, which was opened to passenger traffic two years ago this month, in October 2024. As the Minister knows, since then not a single passenger has travelled on a train, because it cannot work out with the union whether or not there needs to be a guard to open and shut the doors. That is two years of zero passenger revenue against expectations, which will surely have an impact on the business case. Will the Minister commit to publishing an assessment of the financial impact of the failure to run a railway for two years on the overall financial case for East West Rail?
Originally, East West Rail was to run trains on diesel. Then it was proposed to be electric. Then it was proposed to be battery. Now, it is proposed to be battery, electric and diesel. Can the Minister confirm whether East West Rail has finalised what form of traction it will use on its railway? It seems to me to be critical to know how it is going to pull the trains along on the line. I am not a railway engineer, but even I think that that is kind of a basic requirement. East West Rail needs to be forced to make a decision. I understand that it may not want to take a decision, but it really needs to.
Finally, in closing, as I look to the Minister, who I trust to be a courageous man and a good man, I want to ask him a candid question. If he was given a proposal to spend billions of pounds on a railway to which he could say yes or no, and he was told the railway would be lose billions and billions of pounds, and he was told that on value-for-money terms it would be the worst railway built this century, and he was told that after 20 years of operation the company had still not decided on how to power its trains, and he was told that two years after opening its railway it still had not carried a single passenger, would he really give the project the go-ahead?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for securing the debate. I have taken a note of his questions. He will be aware that I am not the Rail Minister. As he gracefully pointed out, I did not get advance notice of his questions —certainly, some of them were of a more rhetorical nature than others—but I will endeavour to ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with a response. I will speak more generally to start with.
East West Rail is a priority transport project for the Government. It will significantly improve connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It will help to unlock good growth, jobs, new homes and opportunities across the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. As we know, the corridor boasts a number of strengths. It is home to world-leading employers and universities. It has one of the highest concentrations of high-tech firms in Europe. It is attracting inward investment, as we have heard, from the likes of Universal, for its new theme park at Stewartby, and in science and innovation at sites such as the biomedical campus in Cambridge.
However, the corridor’s growth has been constrained with high house prices, pressure on existing infrastructure, including the road network, and a long-standing lack of east-to-west connectivity. Those issues are summed up perfectly for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents by the fact that there are no direct rail routes to Oxford or Cambridge, and that it is easier to travel to London by rail than it is to get across the region. That leaves people reliant on cars, infrequent bus or coach services, or not making journeys across the region at all.
The Government are committed to addressing those constraints to growth, and East West Rail is central to our ambition to realise the full potential of that corridor. The remaining stages of the railway involve upgrading the existing Marston Vale line between Bletchley and Bedford and constructing the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge, which the hon. Member focused his comments on. Those stages will be delivered from 2030 onwards, and East West Rail completed its final route-wide consultation on them in the spring. It is currently finalising its proposals for a development consent order application, which I understand will be some time next year.
The plans for the railway include eight new stations, including at Tempsford in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and up to five passenger services per hour. It is not just local journeys that will be improved; the new line will have interchanges with major rail lines, expanding connectivity with the rest of the country. At Tempsford, the new station will also be served by the east coast main line. The East West Rail line will also be partly electrified to support net zero operations using hybrid battery-electric trains, providing greener and faster journeys for passengers. I hope that in part answers one of the hon. Member’s questions.
All those new changes will mean a step change in connectivity across the region and will offer benefits to the hon. Member’s constituents. He has diligently raised—not for the first time—the business case for East West Rail. The BCR is an important measure of value for money, but it is only one part of the overall assessment. Together with the strategic case for East West Rail, that wider evidence informs Government decision making.
For East West Rail there is a clear and compelling strategic case for the project in overcoming the constraints in the region, and in particular, providing opportunities for new jobs, and for new sustainable communities to grow. The line will serve potential new town sites that have been identified by the Government in Tempsford and Milton Keynes, as well as supporting the Government’s aims to unlock development in both Oxford and Cambridge.
We are already seeing investment being brought forward along the planned route, whether that is in new housing developments or the new Universal theme park at Stewartby. Because of that, the project has backing from major employers and institutions across the region, as evidenced by the support of the Oxford to Cambridge supercluster group. Details on the case for the project were set out in the consultation earlier this year, and the economic and technical report on the project published in 2023 provided a significant amount of detail on the different options that had been considered to improve connectivity, as well as the case for the railway.
The hon. Member identified that that was some time ago, and that there have been a number of changes, possibly further strengthening or weakening the case. Further information on the case will be provided as part of the development consent order application and a full business case will be prepared once planning consent has been secured.
Richard Fuller
I do not think that the Minister has taken up my offer of releasing the business case tomorrow. If we go with the process that the Government are hiding behind, will the decision to go ahead by the Government, as well as the DCO from a planning point, have been approved by the time that case has been presented to the public?
Justin Madders
The exact sequencing of those things is something that I would defer to the Rail Minister on, and I will get him to write to the hon. Member. It is the case that the economic benefits and the business cases are considered in tandem with those issues. Publication will be issued once the planning consent has been secured, which is typical for those types of projects, as the hon. Member will know. I hear what the hon. Member says about transparency. He is right that it will not be released tomorrow, but it will become a public document, and I can assure him that he will have his opportunity to make further comment on it.
It is important to state that the benefits that the line will unlock will come from the railway as a whole, in particular the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge. It is also important to say that unlocking the opportunity here is a key part of the strategic and economic cases for the scheme and, in accordance with departmental guidance, additional benefits that are dependent on the scheme will be included in the overall value for money assessment. The latest estimates suggest that the East West Rail line will increase the regional economy by some £6.7 billion GVA per year by 2050 and, obviously, those figures will be updated as we go forward.
There will be significant benefits from the development of the East West Rail line. It is important to state that the latest plans will mean delivering services between Oxford and Stewartby, and then between Oxford and Bedford, ahead of the completion of the line in full, which will allow services to run to the new Universal theme park at the earliest opportunity. I heard the hon. Member’s question about the location of the theme park, and I will take that back to the Rail Minister, too.
While is important to recognise the benefits that East West Rail will deliver, we also recognise that the construction will have some impact on the communities that the hon. Member represents, and significant work has been done to assess alternative routes through public consultation. That work has concluded that serving Bedford directly and enabling fast, direct journeys from stations on the Marston Vale line to Cambridge are a key part of realising the full benefits of the project, which may be the answer to one of his questions—I will ask the Rail Minister to confirm that in writing.
As the hon. Member will be aware, the East West Rail company has worked to reduce the impact of the line on local communities whenever possible, which includes impacts on homes, local businesses and farmland. In its spring consultation, the company set out a range of ways in which it has responded to feedback in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, including moving and lowering the alignment of the railway to reduce visual impacts between Clapham Green and Colesden and working to reduce construction vehicle movements and potential impacts on properties.
I recognise that the hon. Member raised an awful lot of other, more detailed matters. As I have already committed to doing, I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides a full written response.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Young Carers’ Champions
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Today, we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. Before we begin, I remind Members please to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any part of the debate.
Clause 19
Public interest considerations
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 19, page 17, line 1, at end insert—
“(3AB) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the elimination of violence against women and girls, that due regard be given to circumstances arising from a person who seeks to enter or remain in the United Kingdom being a victim of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021).”
This amendment inserts a new public interest consideration into section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, requiring a court or tribunal to take into consideration the effects of violence against women and girls when deciding whether an interference with a person’s Article 8 rights is justified.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 104, in clause 19, page 17, line 1, at end insert—
“(3B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A)(c) whether a person is of good character, the court or tribunal must apply the guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the good character requirement in paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981, as that guidance has effect from time to time.”
This amendment would require the new “good character” consideration to be applied in the same way as the good character requirement for naturalisation as a British citizen.
Amendment 105, in clause 19, page 17, line 3, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require, rather than advise, that no weight is given to private or family life established while a person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully, with leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions.
Amendment 106, in clause 19, page 17, line 7, leave out “serious”.
This probing amendment would apply the “no weight” rule to private or family life established while a person is in any form of breach of a condition of their leave, not just a ‘serious’ breach.
Clause stand part.
Siân Berry
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. My amendment would introduce a public interest test for survivors of violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence into the considerations. I will also speak to the matter of leaving out the clause. I will start with the clause and what it does.
The clause will fundamentally alter the balance that has long existed between article 8 rights and the public interest by restricting the courts’ ability to assess the individual circumstances of each case. Our courts and tribunals carefully balance the right to private and family life against the public interest in an effective immigration system. Our judiciary performs that task every day, helping to deliver justice, uphold the rule of law and guard against abuse. Yet the clause assumes that the balance is being struck wrongly, without the Government having demonstrated that. The main evidence is only a 2022 internal sample of Home Office decisions.
The existing statutory framework already strongly favours the public interest, in particular in deportation cases. While preserving the ability to consider individual circumstances, the clause will replace that with a more prescriptive framework. Here are my views on the main changes in the clause: first, it will require courts to predict whether a person will remain financially independent. That is an inherently speculative exercise, because it fails to consider the uncertainties of ordinary life, including illness, disabilities, caring responsibilities or economic downturns. The effect is likely to discriminate most heavily against disabled people, as well as those with long-term health conditions and caring responsibilities.
Secondly, the clause will discount genuine family life, because of immigration status. Family life formed while a person was here with no leave to remain would be given no weight at all, and family life formed while people’s status was precarious would be given little weight. Precarious migration status covers everyone with anything short of indefinite leave to remain or citizenship—care workers, skilled workers, international students, refugees and partners on the family route.
Under the earned settlement proposals, the qualifying period to become eligible for settlement would be extended to a baseline of 10 years, and in some cases 15 or even 20 years for refugees. Many people will therefore remain on in a precarious position for years, during which the relationships they form and the children they raise would count for little or nothing under the clause. The reality is that family relationships do not cease to exist or be formed just because an immigration status is uncertain.
Strasbourg accepts that precarious status can reduce the weight that is given to family life, but it has not said that it counts for nothing. In an important case, Jeunesse v. the Netherlands, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation—even when the applicant had remained without leave for years—because of the impact on her children. With a “No weight” rule, as in clause 19(4), there will be no space to assess such cases and to retain flexibility. It will weaken protection for children.
Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, when courts assess a child’s best interests they do not look at one factor in isolation—they examine the full picture: a child’s age, health, education, friendships, cultural identity, family circumstances, personal development and connection to the UK—and the children are not defined by a checklist; yet clause 19 would introduce a closed checklist, under which it would be unreasonable
“to expect a child to leave the United Kingdom if (and only if)”
they would receive no education abroad, face “very significant obstacles” to integrating in the new country, or suffer
“a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”.
Each is a very high bar. Remarkably, the Government’s impact assessment describes those factors as a “non-exhaustive” list, but subsection (7) uses the phrase “if and (only if)”. It is very clearly a closed list. The Bill therefore goes even further than the Government say they intend, in terms of its effect on children.
I am also concerned that the clause applies to British children too. As drafted, it could result in a British child with a migrant parent either being separated from their parent or having to leave the UK to preserve the family unit. That results in two-tier British citizenship. The Government’s own impact assessment lists family separation among the consequences of these reforms, and says—with little humanity—that the new test will allow decision makers
“to consider whether parents can maintain their relationship with a child from outside the UK”
or whether a British child can
“successfully adapt to life abroad”.
The existing framework is not perfect, but it already places substantial weight on the public interest and has safeguards allowing courts to consider the facts of each case. Clause 19 risks upsetting that balance. At its heart, the issue here is a simple one: do we trust our courts to weigh the facts before them, or do we seek to predetermine the outcome through statutory presumptions? I believe that the existing approach better serves both justice and the rule of law, and for that reason clause 19 should not stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 61 would reduce the harm of this clause, if it remains, by inserting a new public interest consideration into section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, requiring a court or tribunal to take into consideration the effects of violence against women and girls when deciding whether an interference with a person’s article 8 rights is justified. In my view, without the amendment the Bill will remove or weaken application grounds or causes of appeal relied on by many women living in abusive or exploitative conditions, making them even more vulnerable. That may leave victim-survivors at risk of being refused leave to stay, removed or deported for factors that are a direct consequence of the abuse to which they have been subjected.
To bring that point home, I will provide some examples from organisations that are currently supporting such women. My first example shows how the stricter public interest considerations risk undermining evidence for financial dependency and contact with the criminal justice system being usual results of an experience of violence against women and girls. Julianne was living in another country when she began her relationship with a British man. While visiting him in the UK, she became pregnant with his child and he encouraged her to stay, promising to support her and secure her immigration status. Trusting those assurances, Julianne stayed and became an overstayer. Once her status became insecure, her partner’s behaviour changed dramatically. He subjected her to domestic abuse, isolated her from friends and family overseas, and exploited the fact that she had no support network in the UK. The abuse escalated after the birth of their child.
Julianne eventually fled with her child after a violent assault. She sought medical treatment, reported the abuse to the police and received emergency support from the local authority. Traumatised and destitute, Julianne was left to navigate a complex immigration system alone, as she had been unable to secure legally aided advice and could not afford to pay for a solicitor. She lives with the constant fear of removal. I have changed Julianne’s name.
Julianne had a pathway to regularisation as the parent of a British child; however, if clause 19 becomes law the barriers to regularising her immigration status would be raised significantly, potentially preventing her from qualifying to remain in the UK as the parent of a British child. Re-emphasising the weight of financial independence without reliance on state support and public services will create pressure on victim-survivors like Julianne to stay in abusive and exploitative situations instead of leaving and claiming support, as she did.
Women who have been subject to economic and immigration abuse will be penalised due to their lack of financial independence. The public interest considerations would weigh heavily against Julianne because she accessed support from the local authority while protecting herself and her children from domestic abuse, and because no weight would be given to her family life, as it was established when she overstayed. Without amendment 61, there would be no discretion to consider the role her abuser played in causing her to overstay.
In respect of the redefinition of family, I have a further example of where limiting family life to core cohabiting family and replacing a judicial assessment with a checklist will ignore nuances and external factors forcing a family not to cohabit, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. More broadly, women who are convicted of criminal offences would also be put at increased risk of deportation, as a high evidential standard is needed to prove a disproportionate impact on them or a family member.
That includes women who are coerced or pressured into criminal activity—those driven to engaging with the criminal justice system due to unmet needs, such as being unable to afford food or having unaddressed mental health problems, and those who retaliated against the person abusing or exploiting them, or who had a counter-allegation made against them falsely. All those women are vulnerable and deserving of protection and support, not the further punishment of possible deportation.
My second case study is Blanca. Blanca came to the UK with a visa to work, and while here, she married a British man and had a baby. He had a good job, so they agreed she would stop working, and they then had two more children together. Over time, he became more controlling. Although the children’s benefits were registered in her name, he controlled the payments and did not give her access to the money.
As Blanca did not have her own income, he gave her money for the family’s food, but he would demand that she provide receipts and the exact change. If she bought anything he considered unnecessary, he would be angry and make her return it. That included sanitary products, which Blanca found humiliating and confusing. He also became verbally and later physically abusive towards Blanca, and she became more and more scared of him.
One day, when she was in the supermarket, her period started. She did not know what to do, and she was scared of her husband seeing that she had bought something he thought was unnecessary. She stole a box of sanitary pads, but on her way out of the shop, she was stopped by security who reported her to the police. She was charged and later convicted of theft.
If part 2 of the Bill were fully implemented, Blanca’s conviction would put her at high risk of deportation. No consideration would be given to the abuse that she experienced, which pushed her to commit the crime, nor would it be given to her vulnerability and trauma. In addition, as she did not have lawful status for much of the time she was in the UK, her private and family life may be deemed to hold no weight—or, at best, little weight—if it were held to have been established when she arrived with precarious status.
The Committee can see that clause 19 has all these knock-on effects into further parts of the Bill, and that this additional public interest consideration is necessary. I hope the Committee will discuss and support amendment 61, if clause 19 is to remain in the Bill. I am happy for this to be a probing amendment, if the Government will consider these risks and make their own similar changes to the Bill later.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. As we discussed in the last sitting, clause 18 asks who counts as family, but clause 19 asks what weight that family should carry against the public interest. The clause goes to the heart of public concern, as it considers people who build a life here, while they have no right to be here, only to rely on that recently constructed life as a reason to stay in the UK indefinitely.
I will speak to amendments 104 to 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and I, as well as amendment 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, and clause 19. The Opposition support the broad direction of travel in which the Government are going with the clause; however, to our reading, much of it is unfortunately drafted in a way that means it will be all too easy for the courts to set aside. Furthermore, the evidence behind the clause has not yet been published. I will take the Committee through both aspects.
First, clause 19 amends section 117B of the 2002 Act, which deals with the public interest considerations that apply in every article 8 case. Subsection (2) replaces the requirement to be financially independent with a three-part, forward-looking test, which is that a person must be, and is
“likely to remain, financially independent…able to house themselves…without reliance on state support”
and is not
“reliant on public services, in particular health or social care services, in the long-term”.
Subsection (3) adds a new public interest in people who have not been convicted of an offence anywhere, have co-operated with the immigration authorities and
“are otherwise of good character.”
Subsection (4) changes “little weight” to “no weight” being given to a
“private or family life established by a person”
who is here without leave, or with leave obtained by deception, or who is in “serious breach” of its conditions. Subsection (5) extends “little weight” for precarious status to family life as well as private life. Subsections (6) and (7) tighten the rule on parents with qualifying children. There must now be
“a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”
on a child who stays, and it is unreasonable
“to expect a child to leave the United Kingdom if (and only if)”
one of three conditions is met.
On the evidence base, the Home Office told the Committee that 71% of those newly granted article 8 leave
“had entered illegally or overstayed”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 73, Q130.]
and that grants made in 2025 cost the taxpayer an incredible £4.9 billion. If those figures are correct, the case for this clause is overwhelming and undeniable; however, the Committee has not seen the evidence behind them. If the Government want the House to legislate on the strength of the 71% and the £4.9 billion cost figures, it is our view that they should publish the sample, definitions and method before Report.
On financial independence, subsection (2) is, in our view, right in principle. The Library records that the Home Office’s aim is
“increased refusals or unsuccessful appeals in cases where applicants impose avoidable burdens on public resources”.
I certainly think the public will agree, but the test is a prediction about the future, and the Bill says nothing about how it is to be made. In its evidence, the Law Society told us:
“No detail has been provided on how the elements of this test are to be determined”.
Over what period will future reliance be assessed? What evidence will be required, and will guidance be published before commencement?
There is a further difficulty, which is whether this subsection will be able to survive the courts. Again, according to the Law Society,
“the Government’s human rights memorandum at paragraph 27”
acknowledges that the new criteria are
“likely to result in discriminatory outcomes for…older or disabled people”.
The Bar Council makes the same point. A test that the Government themselves expect to operate unequally is one that will in all likelihood be litigated under the Equality Act 2010 and perhaps article 14—and one that the courts may well soften as a result. I ask the Minister: what mitigation does the Government propose to avoid that?
On good character and amendment 104, subsection (3) sets out a new public interest in people who have not offended, have co-operated with the authorities and are “of good character”. Again, we support the direction of travel, but “good character” is not defined in the Bill or the explanatory notes, which seems an extraordinary gap, though I recognise that it is quite difficult to define it in the Bill. This is another example of the Government potentially setting themselves up for failure in the Bill. The Bar Council says that it hands the Home Office
“a general evaluative test that is highly subjective in scope”.
The Law Society and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association made similar points in their evidence. An undefined test is an invitation to future litigation.
There is a ready answer, though, to which I shall point the Committee: the good character guidance used in naturalisation decisions, which is detailed and demanding, with periods that taper according to the length of sentence. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will apply that guidance here? Amendment 104 would add that to the Bill. What will count as a failure to co-operate with immigration processes—absconding, the destruction of documents, ignoring a claim notice under clause 11, et cetera? It would be helpful to understand what the Government’s understanding is.
On amendments 105 and 106, the explanatory notes accept that courts can depart from the weightings under section 117A(2) of the 2002 Act. The Law Society says that the change
“appears to be an attempt to bar a full proportionality assessment”,
and sets up a conflict with the duty on the Home Secretary and the courts to
“act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6 of the Human Rights Act.”
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has dealt with this point eloquently, but I wish to speak briefly on clause 19 and the Opposition amendments.
Obviously, I support what the Government are trying to achieve here, but I think they could go a little further in the drafting. When we talk about public interest, that goes to the heart of the whole issue and problem we have in this country of trying to tackle immigration—in particular, legal immigration and asylum claims. What is in the public interest? The problem is that the system we have has strayed so far from the public interest. Although the clause gives a legal definition, it is also a meaningful way of translating and understanding a political, social, economic and public problem. It is in the public interest that we do all we can to tackle the current volume of asylum and immigration claims. It is not a unanimous position, but very few in Parliament, and very few in the public at large, would disagree with the fundamental point that we need to bring down the level of immigration, asylum claims and illegal boat crossings.
On the public interest consideration, the topic of the right to family life picks up from the Committee’s discussion last week. The right to family life stems from the European convention on human rights and is a qualified right, meaning that it does not stand towering above all other considerations. It is my view, and a commonly held view—in fact, a view that was given by the Minister—that the right has strayed too far. Over many years, jurisprudence has allowed an expansive interpretation that has taken the family life core protection to cover a far wider set of circumstances. It is now used as a routine tool by those who wish to remain in the UK when the threat to or infringement of their family life, as a fundamental human right, is not really an issue. Clause 19 is part of the framework that seeks to attack that use.
We are where we are partly because of a set of legislation—with a convention at its core—made by Parliament over the years, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and other Acts, that has sought to define and in some cases limit, in others not, what we mean by the right to family life and the public interest. Those laws have been unsuccessful in doing that. The intention was there, but the drafting was insufficiently certain—though to some extent that is inherent in all legislating in this place—to ensure that the courts interpret the legislation as narrowly as Parliament intended. The Government have gone some way to try to be restrictive, as they think they have been in this clause, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire points out, some changes to the wording can be made. His amendments 105 and 106 seek to deliver those. The clause states:
“No weight should be given”;
but stating that no weight must be given would get rid of a door that is ajar to the courts to interpret the clause more expansively. The amendment slams that door by inserting the word “must”, so that there is no leeway for a clever legal argument that “should” gives sufficient leeway for a court effectively to make a decision that runs against what the legislation is trying to deliver.
I do not take the view that judges or indeed lawyers—on the whole, as a profession, broadly speaking—should be demonised for making decisions that use loopholes in the law. If this place fails to make the law certain and fails to close those loopholes, the fault comes back to Parliament and the Government who brought the legislation through Parliament. Here is the opportunity to tighten it up—that is the purpose of a Bill Committee: to tighten up wording through the fair scrutiny process.
The Opposition’s amendment 106 relates to a measure where the Government were perhaps not trying to completely close the door. It may be something that they deliberately left open. Amendment 106 would change proposed new section 117B(4)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in clause 19(4) of the Bill. I will quote proposed new paragraph 117B(4)(b) for Hansard, though it may appear out of context:
“they are in serious breach of a condition attached to their leave to enter or remain.”
The Opposition amendment seeks to leave out the word “serious” so that the provision applies to someone simply in breach of a condition.
My suspicion is that the Government want to leave a set of breaches of a condition that would not affect someone’s leave to remain. The Opposition’s position is that, if someone has breached a condition, that should mean the fundamental failure of any claim to remain that cites a right to family life. To me, the amendment would provide the certainty needed and deliver on what the public expect of us to tackle a significant problem in this country—the large number of claims that go beyond the original intention behind the right to family life.
The problem with leaving the word “serious” in the legislation is that it will be open to the court to make a decision about whether a breach is serious enough. Without any specific guidance or checklist in the legislation, the court will consider seriousness as a relative word or concept in an appellant’s case to not be returned to another country. A case could be made based on circumstance that family life is fundamentally important to someone and that sending them home would split up a family. They may paint a picture of the environment at home that could be very alien to us as a free and democratic society. Suddenly, that “serious breach” question might lead a court to conclude that a serious breach in the abstract becomes quite a minimal one when compared with an applicant’s story of hardship.
My concern is that the word “serious” will become a flexible term to be interpreted by the court. It will always be measured against the relative hardship of the claimant, who will of course state their case at its strongest in order to leverage the flexibility of the word “serious”. I struggle to see why the Government would not want to add in certainty, unless they particularly want to create an avenue where people can still make the right to family life claim. It would be extraordinary if they did, given all the rationale they have provided for bringing forward this set of provisions and the Bill in the first place. The Minister should be very clear about whether she sees this as a disagreement around drafting, or whether she is seeking—I am sure that she would have a reason for it, though I would disagree with it—to have an avenue of flexibility in the Bill, and why.
There is provision in the clause, and rightfully so, for particular circumstances in relation to children. Children are in a very special category because of their dependency and vulnerability. There are a number of situations laid out, but subsection (6) in particular deals with situations where there would be
“a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on the child.”
We do not want to see people deported or removed when that would have a significant and long-lasting adverse effect on the child. There are protections are built in here. Others may say that this is a particularly draconian provision, but I see some protections there and in paragraphs (a) to (c) of proposed new subsection (7) that are widely accepted and uncontroversial, and I wanted to draw attention to them.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
The clause addresses a basic question: when someone asks to stay in this country, what does the public interest expect of them? The Government’s answer is one that I suspect most of our constituents would recognise: that the person pays their way, does not rely on the state to put a roof over their head, does not commit crimes, co-operates with the authorities and is of good character. Those are reasonable expectations and we welcome much of the clause.
The clause’s strength, however, comes down to a handful of words. Proposed new subsection 117B(4) of the 2002 Act says:
“No weight should be given to a private or family life”
that is built up while someone is here unlawfully, on leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions. Think about who that covers—someone who came here illegally, lied to get a visa or broke the conditions on which this country let them in. When the time comes to remove them, that person asks a court to weigh a life built up in that time against their removal.
We agree with the Government that weight should not be given. However, “should” is the language of advice; “must” is the language of law. The Government have already moved from “little weight” to “no weight”, and I welcome that—amendment 105 simply finishes the job. If the Government mean that no weight must be given, let the statute say, “No weight must be given”. In this area of law, a door left ajar is an invitation.
Moreover, the no weight rule applies only where someone is in serious breach of their conditions. What is serious? Is it working beyond the hours that their visa allows? Is it claiming benefits that they are not entitled to? Is it overstaying their visa by a month? The Bill does not say, so a tribunal will decide case by case, which will bring us back to the very weighing exercise that the Government say they want to end. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee what the Home Office understands a “serious breach” to mean, and whether it will be defined in guidance.
Amendment 104 deals with good character. Proposed new subsection 117B(3A) says it is in the public interest that people seeking to stay here are of good character, but clause 19 does not say what good character means. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire that there is already a well-established test in the good character requirement for British citizenship set out in Home Office guidance. Amendment 104 says that the court should apply that test. It would be strange if the bar to stay in this country were lower than the bar to become a citizen of it, and stranger still for every tribunal to invent its own version from scratch.
The clause asks the right questions. Our amendments ensure that the answers carry the force of the law. The Government have chosen “no weight” over “little weight”, and that is welcome; let them finish the job by replacing “should” with “must” and telling us what they mean by “good character” and “serious breach”. I commend our amendments to the Committee.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Murrison. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on the clause and amendments in this grouping.
Before moving on to the amendments, I will give some background on what the clause will do. The balance between an individual’s family rights and the public interest in maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system has shifted, and it needs to be reset. Without greater clarity from Parliament on how that balance should be struck, the domestic interpretation of article 8 has expanded beyond what our international obligations require, resulting in inconsistent decision making and high volumes of article 8 grants to people who cannot meet the rules to come or to stay in the UK.
More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our criteria to be able to stay here, instead relying on their article 8 rights. That undermines public confidence in the immigration system and the rules-based international order. It also comes at a significant cost to the UK taxpayer. As has already been mentioned, the average net lifetime fiscal cost for each first-time grant is £141,000, equating to approximately £4.9 billion for those granted on the basis of article 8 in 2025 alone.
Colleagues have asked about the evidence base behind those figures, so I will give a bit more information about it. We undertook a deep dive cohort analysis to examine a representative sample of 3,252 article 8-related applications, in order to support the policy development of these measures in the Bill. Further details are in the impact assessment. I am afraid that the unpublished internal sample that was referred to will not be made available due to the personal data sensitivities involved, but we will obviously keep under review any further analysis that we would be keen to share with the Committee throughout the course of the Bill, for example other statistics that have been mentioned.
This trend has been driven by high volumes of people who have arrived illegally or overstayed in the UK, at 71% of first-time grants, or by people who are unemployed and are making a minimal economic contribution—76% of first-time grants. It is clear that the system is not functioning fairly and effectively. That is why the British public feel exasperated that such exemptions are being abused to enable people to circumvent the system.
Clause 19 will help to restore a fairer balance between an individual’s right to family life and the public interest in maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system. It will provide a clearer statutory framework that places greater emphasis on compliance and contribution, resulting in more consistent and robust outcomes. These reforms will realign UK legislation with Strasbourg, ensuring that our domestic approach to article 8 is within and, crucially, not beyond our international obligations, as it is now.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Clause 19 introduces some quite fundamental changes, which I fully support, but is the Minister confident that it will still meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights? That is the litmus test.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. That is why the drafting of clause 19 has been very clear and specific, which I will say more about later.
It is important that we comply with our international obligations. We have a proud history of doing so—we helped to devise, draft and create these obligations—but we also have a history of overinterpreting them. It is not a free-for-all, but it is important that we act within the requirements we are obliged to meet and do not go beyond them. That is what the provisions in the Bill seek to achieve.
That includes a clarification that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including by considering whether they can support themselves and their family. It is only fair to all those who work hard in this country to be financially independent and to house themselves, and who are not overly reliant on public services, that they do not see others who otherwise have no right to be here imposing avoidable burdens on society and public services.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Will the financial independence test be individualised, will it be evidence-based in its assessment, and will it recognise barriers such as credit history, references and guarantors? Furthermore, will a survivor’s use of refuge or public funds to escape abuse count against them?
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and I will say a lot more about those issues when I respond to the contributions by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. However, we are absolutely clear that we are not going to penalise people for experiencing hardship. These reforms preserve protections for vulnerable people and children, but it is vital that we make it clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight in any consideration. This is about restoring balance, not removing safeguards. That is critical.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Having listened to some contributions, particularly from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, I think that most fair-minded people would be concerned that these reforms could have a detrimental impact on children. Can the Minister confirm whether or not these reforms remove protections for children?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend raises a critical issue that is, of course, dear to all of our hearts. Again, I will say more about it later, but these reforms absolutely do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will continue to remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making, as they should be. The reforms in clause 19 ensure that children’s interests are considered alongside other important factors, including compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system.
Anna Turley
Forgive me, but I have not addressed these issues yet, so if the hon. Gentleman can be patient for a little longer—I am sure he will have more questions afterwards—I would like to make some progress, if I may.
The clause also introduces character and conduct as a factor in the public interest test. This will require judges to have regard to harmful conduct, including criminality below the deportation threshold and outside the mandatory suitability refusals. This is an important element of tackling abuse and takes us one step towards a fairer system that the public can have confidence in.
The clause further reduces avenues for abuse by requiring that no weight—instead of little weight, as now—should be given to an article 8 claim established when someone is here illegally, or legally but only by deceiving the Home Office, or if they have seriously breached the conditions of their permission to be in the UK. That will enable us to more effectively enforce our immigration rules and prevent people from unfairly benefiting from time spent in the UK in violation of our rules, and will avoid the creation of perverse incentives for people who are here unlawfully to try to deliberately establish article 8 claims.
Although it is right that essential protections for children are retained, it is not right that adults who abuse our immigration system are almost guaranteed to be allowed to stay if they can prove a parental relationship with a child in the UK. Currently, there is no need to carry out a full balancing exercise if there is a child. This is the main source of successful article 8 claims, two thirds of which result in residence rights being granted.
The clause clarifies which factors should be considered when determining whether it is in the public interest to remove the parent of a qualifying child from the UK, and introduces a provision to assess the impact of removing a parent where a child remains in the UK.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for amendment 61, which sets out a new public interest consideration, under which specific regard would be given to the circumstances of victims of violence against women and girls when assessing whether interference with an individual’s article 8 right is justified. Of course, we absolutely recognise and take seriously the importance of tackling violence against women and girls, and the devastating impact that it has on victims. However, the Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary.
Clause 19 already preserves a case-specific assessment in which courts and tribunals can consider all relevant facts and evidence, including experiences of domestic abuse, violence and exploitation, and the safeguarding concerns that the hon. Lady mentioned in her case studies. The holistic article 8 assessment that the clause retains ensures that protections exist for vulnerable people and that support remains available for those who genuinely need it. In addition, existing provisions in the immigration rules, including “Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse” and the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, provide specific protections. Those safeguards are there to ensure that victims’ experiences are properly recognised and taken into account.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling amendment 104. I understand the intention behind it, but I am afraid that the Government do not consider the amendment to be helpful. I agree that good character is an important consideration in article 8 cases. Including that factor in the public interest test ensures that protections are focused on those who have acted responsibly. That is an important element of creating a fair system that the public have confidence in and that is not open to abuse. The clause establishes that and requires the courts and tribunals to have regard to harmful conduct, including that below the deportation threshold and outside mandatory suitability refusals. We will set out further detail on that in published guidance and the immigration rules.
Let me be clear that the existing guidance, including the guidance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, will be a useful comparator and will play an important role in shaping this. We do not want to be tied exclusively to the 1981 guidance, but want to develop ours further. Our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the Bill but is addressed through the guidance.
Siân Berry
I am very interested in the fact that the Minister has just talked about going further on good character in some guidance. Will that guidance take into account factors that might otherwise weigh against the character of someone making an appeal if they have been exploited or abused? Is that the kind of thing that the Minister is thinking about in terms of deviating from the 1981 guidance?
Anna Turley
The guidance will set out very clearly what we will ask the courts and tribunals to have regard to in relation to harmful conduct. We will also make sure, as I have already mentioned, that there is sufficient protection regarding issues around domestic violence. That will be in our immigration rules, and it is in our existing provisions. We will ensure that courts and tribunals consider all relevant facts and evidence. I place this on the record in Committee: we will expect experiences of domestic violence, abuse and exploitation, and safeguarding concerns to be a key part of that.
To go back to amendment 104, our approach will reflect the approach already taken in nationality legislation, so that good character is not exhaustively defined in the Bill, but addressed through guidance. Everything raised by colleagues in Committee will be on the record.
Joe Robertson
Surely the Minister understands that while “no weight” may be the starting point, the end point is the decision, and that is the issue. A decision maker can have a starting point of “no weight”, but attach weight, and suddenly the decision is not where I think even she might intend in many cases.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but it is important for cases to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We can be as specific as possible, but the reality is that courts and tribunals have to maintain the flexibility to determine cases based on the individual facts and circumstances before them. It is important that our drafting enables that.
Blake Stephenson
I want to press that point. If the Minister’s position is that she wants the starting point for tribunals to be “no weight”, then what is the harm in adding “must” to make it absolutely clear that the House expects tribunals to apply “no weight”? But then she says that she wants tribunals to have flexibility, so which one is it?
Anna Turley
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but we absolutely cannot bind the courts’ hands in this situation. The reality is that they have to be flexible. We can set a very clear steer—that is on the record, in the Bill and in legislation—but it is important that we allow the courts flexibility, because their role is to establish the facts, case by case.
David Smith
I was going to make the same point that the Minister has just made to some degree. It seems to me that the key terminology in the clause is “no weight”. Can she say more about what that will mean in practise?
Anna Turley
As my hon. Friend rightly flags, “no weight” is the starting point for the weight that should be given to a person’s private or family life established in the time that they were in the UK without permission. That is a clear definition for the court. Applying the “no weight” rule to all breaches of leave could mean minor or technical breaches leave cases open to challenges of disproportionality.
Amendment 106 is in a similar vein. Although we agree that non-compliance must have consequences, it is appropriate that we distinguish between serious breaches and less significant or technical non-compliance, because we always have to have proportionality. Removing “serious” would considerably widen the provision and could require the same approach to be taken to conduct of very different gravity. The Government’s reforms already substantially strengthen the public interest side of the article 8 balancing exercise. The inclusion of “serious” helps to ensure that the reforms are focused on the cases of greatest concern.
Blake Stephenson
In that case, if “serious” is to remain in the Bill, will the Minister help the Committee to understand what types of scenarios might constitute serious or not serious?
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s attempts to define this, but it is important to say that we are keen not to include specific definitions in the Bill, as we are worried that they could result in disproportionate outcomes. Our approach is to be robust, targeted and, crucially, legally sustainable. We do not want to allow ourselves to be open to challenge.
Tom Gordon
The Minister talks about not wanting to include specific definitions in the Bill, but some stakeholder groups are concerned that the Bill does not rule out British children being subject to the child test. Would she not consider including such a provision in the Bill to ensure that it does not end up forcing a British child out of the country?
Anna Turley
Again, we have to look at each case on its individual merits, and we cannot bind the court’s hands in such a situation; the family rules will be taken in their entirety.
Tom Gordon
Can I press the Minister a little further on that point? To give a direct quote, can the Minister guarantee that no British child will be expected to leave the country of which they are a citizen as a result of this clause?
Anna Turley
I am not going to rule that out here in the Committee, but I can come back and clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. My expectation is that if someone is deported, and they wish to take their child with them, they are perfectly entitled to do so. It is not for the Government to say that the child has to stay in this country, rather than moving with their family. I will not rule that out here in the Committee.
In conclusion, clause 19 tightly defines the public interest test to ensure that individual rights are properly balanced against the public interest in effective immigration control, and to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system.
Siân Berry
Further to the discussion with the Minister about ensuring that victims of abuse and sexual violence are protected, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 105, in clause 19, page 17, line 3, leave out “should” and insert “must”.—(Blake Stephenson.)
This amendment would require, rather than advise, that no weight is given to private or family life established while a person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully, with leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 20, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years—
(a) the first and second sets of exceptional circumstances do not apply, and
(b) the third set of exceptional circumstances applies only where there are very compelling circumstances over and above those described in subsections (4) and (5).”
This amendment would restore the current rule that a foreign national sentenced to four years or more cannot resist deportation by relying on the long-residence or “unduly harsh” exceptions and must show very compelling circumstances over and above them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 108, in clause 20, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) The first and second sets of exceptional circumstances do not apply where a person has been convicted of—
(a) a specified offence within the meaning of section 306 of the Sentencing Code, or
(b) an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 committed against a person under the age of 18.”
This amendment would prevent foreign nationals convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences, or sexual offences against children, from resisting deportation on the long-residence or “unduly harsh” family grounds, whatever their sentence.
Amendment 109, in clause 20, page 18, line 29, leave out from “is” to end of line 30 and insert
“over and above that which would arise if the circumstances in subsection (4) or (5) applied.”
This amendment would require very compelling circumstances going beyond the long-residence and family exceptions, rather than circumstances merely “at least as strong as” them, restoring the formulation in the current section 117C(6).
Amendment 110, in clause 20, page 18, line 34, after “3(5)(a)” insert “, (5)(b)”.
This probing amendment would include family members of a deportee within the definition of a person liable to deportation for the purposes of Part 5A.
Amendment 111, in clause 20, page 18, line 36, leave out “(2) to (4)” and insert “(2) and (3)”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 107. It would retain section 117D(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which sets out how a period of imprisonment is calculated for the purposes of Part 5A of that Act.
Clause stand part.
New clause 45—Deportation of foreign offenders—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 32, for subsections (1) to (3) substitute—
‘(1) In this section
“foreign criminal” means a person—
(a) who is not a British or Irish citizen, and
(b) who is—
(i) convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence, or
(ii) charged with an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.’
(3) In section 33, omit subsections (1)(b), (2), (3) and (6A).
(4) In section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, omit all instances of the word ‘knowingly’.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order in respect of a foreign national who is convicted of an offence or who is charged with an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
New clause 66—Automatic deportation: forced-marriage offences—
“(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), for ‘Condition 1 or 2’ substitute ‘Condition 1, 2 or 3’.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Condition 3 is that the person has been convicted of an offence under section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (offence of forced marriage: England and Wales).’”
This new clause would amend section 32 of the UK Borders Act to create a separate basis for automatic deportation where a person is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence under section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, concerning forced marriage.
New clause 67—Particularly serious crime: National Security Act 2023 offences—
“(1) Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) After (5ZB) insert—
‘(6) A person is presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if—
(a) the person is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence listed in the National Security Act 2023; and
(b) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (2).’”
This new clause would make any conviction of an offence under the National Security Act 2023 an automatic deportation offence, as is currently the case with offences under Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Blake Stephenson
On Thursday 15 October, the Government were kind enough to accept Opposition amendment 96 to clause 17; I hope the Minister will look at these amendments with the same open mind, because of all the clauses in part 2, this is the one that the public care the most deeply about. People expect that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in this country will be deported, and they do not understand why family life—often family life formed while the offender was here—so frequently stands in the way. It is frankly unacceptable.
Our reasoned amendment on Second Reading made the point that this Bill
“does not ensure all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants will be deported”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 679.].
Clause 20 is where that concern is tested. My case is that, although the clause contains real improvements, which we support, it also makes the position easier for the most serious offenders. Either way, it leaves the final word where it is today: with the judge’s assessment of proportionality.
The clause does four things. First, it extends the deportation rules in section 117C of the 2002 Act from foreign criminals to everyone liable to deportation, including those deported because it is conducive to the public good. Secondly, it replaces the current structure of a single rule, that deportation is required unless its effect on the person or their family would be disproportionate. Thirdly, it replaces the sentence length threshold of 12 months and four years with a sliding scale: the more serious the offending and its impact on society, the greater the public interest in deportation. Fourthly, it provides that deportation will be disproportionate if, and only if, one of three sets of exceptional circumstances applies: long residence and integration, an unduly harsh effect on a partner or child, or other very compelling circumstances, and the interference cannot be justified by the public interest.
I turn first to what the clause gets right, because I want to be fair to the Government in this Committee. Extending the rules to all deportation cases is a genuine tightening, and for that reason the Opposition support it. There is a reasonable legal argument that the new structure restores the balance test that the courts took away. Dr Chris Rowe of Swansea University argues that after the Supreme Court’s decision in KO (Nigeria) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the unduly harsh exception came to operate as an unqualified right, which we heard about in earlier Committee sittings. If the effect on the family was harsh enough, the strength of the public interest did not matter. He argued that clause 20(3) would be effective in restoring a balance against the public interest. If that is correct, it is a real improvement for so-called medium offenders.
Once again, however, I cannot help but notice what kind of improvement this is. On Dr Rowe’s own analysis, clause 20 brings domestic law back to what the Strasbourg case law requires, but does not go beyond it, and for the most serious offenders, the clause appears to move in the wrong direction. Under the current law, someone sentenced to four years or more cannot rely on the long residence or unduly harsh exceptions on their own; they must show very compelling circumstances over and above them. Clause 20 removes the sentence thresholds altogether. Justice, which, I should say, supports the change for very different reasons, describes the effect precisely in its evidence, stating that the Bill
“flattens out the application of the exceptions, so that all three apply, regardless of the length of a person’s sentence.”
The House of Commons Library briefing says that it is “not clear” how the new rules are stricter for people sentenced to more than four years.. Does the Minister accept that under clause 20, the most serious offenders gain access to exceptions one and two? If so, why? What reasons could the Government have for loosening the rules for the worst-offending foreign criminals? Presumably, the Government are trying to achieve the opposite.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I completely understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument and the good intentions behind it. We do not want those who seek to harm our nation or our citizens to have leave to remain. However, my concern regarding the Opposition amendments, which have been tabled with those good intentions, is that they come with such a prescriptive list. Over time, different crimes and offences will evolve that we want to include, so is there not a fear that such a prescriptive list will not protect us in the long term, as opposed to leaving the Bill with a slightly wider scope, as was intended?
Blake Stephenson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting the general thrust of what we are trying to achieve with the amendments, and I accept his point. By having a narrow list, we may constrain future opportunities and changes, and we need to be flexible. However, it is important that the Committee expresses its view that these crimes are abhorrent. Although it is a narrow list, this place can of course legislate further in the future, as life changes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general support and I understand his point, but given the gravity of these crimes, it is important that this Committee is very clear that they are totally unacceptable.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I think there is broad agreement on the principle behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, but is he seriously suggesting that, for every additional crime that we decide needs to be added to his inexhaustible list, we must come back to the House and somebody has to sign off on it?
Blake Stephenson
We are here to legislate, so I do not think it is unreasonable for us to be defining what is right and wrong. Perhaps we can leave it to the Minister to respond.
The unfortunate reality is that, with this Bill, the Government are falling into the very same trap that the previous Government fell into. The legislation may be designed to work around the constraints imposed by the ECHR, but it will ultimately run up against the very same problems. The courts will default to the positions that they have consistently taken, enabling individuals with no right to remain in this country to delay or prevent their removal. Indeed, when the Bill fails to enable the Government to address the extensive range of grounds for resisting removal that flow from the ECHR, will the Minister finally accept that—as we have long argued—the real problem lies outside the drafting of the legislation, however robust it might be, and however robust the Government intend it to be today?
As I have already noted, the Minister described discussions about leaving the ECHR last week as unnecessary and counterproductive. If she genuinely believes that deterrence must sit at the heart of the response to these challenges, I struggle to see how removing the ability of foreign criminals to rely on the convention to delay or prevent their removal could reasonably be considered as either unnecessary or counterproductive.
The Opposition will not oppose clause 20. Extending these rules to all deportation cases and restoring the balance against the public interest are steps in the right direction that we support. However, the clause removes the clear lines that protected the public from the most serious offenders, and it gives these criminals access to exceptions that cannot be used today. We will seek to press amendments 107 and 108 to a vote, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to the various questions I have asked.
Siân Berry
I will speak very briefly on clause 20, specifically subsection (4). At present, it will expand the scope of section 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that it automatically applies to everyone whose deportation the Home Secretary has decided is conducive to the public good, regardless of the objective seriousness of their offence, under the Immigration Act 1971 and its use of the word “deems”, which I think is very important.
I hope the Minister can answer three questions on the clause. First, do the proportionality qualification and the exceptions in the clause offer any protection for those whose criminality is as a result of exploitation or abuse, particularly those who face immigration-related domestic abuse and have been convicted of crimes related to that? On that theme, the new clauses tabled by the official Opposition would clarify the word “serious” so that some offences would be considered serious automatically. I see the point they are trying to make, but if we made that automatic, it would not be possible for those who are exploited and drawn into criminality to face a proportionate, human-rights-based public interest test. I do not support those new clauses, nor do I support amendments 108 to 111.
Siân Berry
I am asking the Minister these questions, so it would be marvellous if we could wait to see how she answers them.
Thirdly, does that approach not allow the Home Secretary to unilaterally stack the deck against an appellant in an appeal, on an arbitrary basis? Does that take away from the objective seriousness of the offence that they have committed? Does the approach therefore impermissibly limit the ability of the appellate body to decide an article 8 ECHR claim on its merits, as is required under the Human Rights Act 1998?
Joe Robertson
Clause 20 deals with cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. The issues I have with the clause are broadly twofold. One issue is around the drafting, which has a number of serious deficiencies. That is not about whether the Government are getting it wrong or right on what they are trying to achieve, but about having certainty on what the legislation will do when it comes to people having to make decisions. My second issue is disagreement with what the Government are trying to achieve.
Under proposed new section 117C, which I will try to deal with as precisely as I can,
“(1) Where a person is liable to deportation, the public interest, and in particular the interest in public safety and the prevention of disorder or crime, requires their deportation unless its effect on the person or a member of their family would be disproportionate.”
That deals with the public interest and its definition. Let us put aside the “unless”, which clearly opens an avenue for the court to examine whether the effect on the person or a member of their family would be disproportionate, and deal with that public interest element. Proposed new subsection (1) says that “the public interest...requires” the deportation of those liable to it, which directs the court to define “public interest” as one thing. However, the Bill tries to define what that public interest is in proposed new subsection (2). It sets out “more serious” factors that point towards a greater public interest in a person’s deportation. It does not matter what those factors are, but they are in proposed new subsection (2)(a) to (c).
Why on earth does the court need direction in assessing the extent of the public interest when it is being directed to consider that public interest simply “requires their deportation”? It seems entirely meaningless to start directing the court as to what public interest might mean in terms of giving weighting to the factors in proposed new subsection (2)(a) to (c) when the court is being told to simply deport under the public interest. I fail to see how it has any relevance whatsoever, and it is potentially distracting from what the Government are trying to achieve.
I will now deal with the “unless” element, because that is entirely separate. Proposed new section 117C says that deportation is required
“unless its effect on the person or a member of their family would be disproportionate.”
The court decision makers are given some help on what “disproportionate” would mean, which is entirely sensible. I disagree with some of the elements that the court should consider, but it is sensible to give the decision makers some direction.
I will stick to the drafting of paragraphs (a) to (c) of proposed new section 117C(4). Paragraph (a) says that exceptional circumstances apply where a person
“has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of their life”.
Given that provisions in relation to children, not just in this Bill but generally in the way we do law in this country, are different from provisions in relation to adults, that provision needs to be clear about whether it means a person has been resident in the United Kingdom for most of their adult life or their entire life from birth. Although it may suggest entire life from birth, I can see a court assuming it means adult life because we deal with children separately. It would therefore be much easier for someone who is, say, aged 24 and has been in the country for only three or four years to say that they have been a resident for most of their life, because provisions for children are separate. That is an avenue that could be exploited through a lack of drafting, unless the Government mean adult life. I think they should mean entire life, and they should be specific about what they mean.
Secondly, paragraph (b) says that exceptional circumstances apply where
“the person is socially and culturally integrated in the United Kingdom”.
How on earth is a decision maker or a court supposed to determine whether someone is or is not socially and culturally integrated into the UK? We could have an entire PhD thesis on the extent of somebody’s social and cultural integration. We may all have views on what it means to be socially and culturally integrated. There may be some common themes around our views, but there will be much disagreement about the specifics when trying to make a decision about an individual case.
Of course, the decision makers are not there to do some highly resourced, detailed investigative study into someone’s circumstances. They will basically be relying on assertions. Surely it is open to someone saying, “I’ve lived here for a number of years. I speak English to a degree and I can go about normal daily life without endlessly causing friction or hardship, and I am therefore sufficiently socially and culturally integrated into the UK.” Or is the court supposed to examine the way they dress or eat, who they mix with and how often, the cultural background of the people they mix with or their religious traditions? Not only is it opening a can of worms, but it is quite offensive to have the state investigating someone’s social and cultural integration in order to make a yes or no decision.
According to this provision, a court—the decision maker—is not to make a decision about someone being reasonably well integrated or showing signs of cultural integration; someone is either socially and culturally integrated, or they are not. I just cannot see how the Government can possibly expect a decision maker to open up such an investigation. And that would be only one part of the integration inquiry.
Proposed new subsection (4)(c) then talks about
“very significant obstacles to the person’s integration in the country to which they are proposed to be deported.”
Having run the analysis and come up with a view about an individual’s cultural and social integration into the UK, the decision maker has to run a similar test on their ability to integrate into the country to which they are supposed to be deported—a theoretical test, because it might be somewhere they have not been for some time—where it is even harder to make some sort of value judgment, because it is a country that the decision maker could have absolutely zero experience of living in, and so they will, again, be reliant on assertions.
The test in that case is not even the same as in proposed new subsection 4(b), where the person must be “socially and culturally integrated”; at subsection 4(c), it is the person’s “integration”—there is no qualification of cultural and social integration. In this country, they could be socially and culturally integrated, but not integrated in a wide range of other ways; yet in the country that they are proposed to go to, any integration issues, not just social and cultural ones, could be a “significant” obstacle to integration. I do not understand why the definition is narrower on the question of a person’s integration—albeit far too broad for a court to tackle—for assessing the situation in this country and much wider for the situation elsewhere.
There are serious drafting issues here. We cannot merely just see where it all comes out in the wash, saying Home Office officials are very capable and all that sort of stuff. We have seen the problem with the number of appeals. Some of these provisions will genuinely need the court to tackle the interpretation issues, in the normal way that we do common law in this country, through test cases. These provisions will require an unusual set of test cases, through to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, to get judicial interpretation and assistance for the courts to apply thereafter, but, as we have seen in test cases, it is rarely one case that sets a new environment for the lower courts and decision makers to adhere to, but a series of them.
This is not only going to require an extraordinary amount of time to understand terms that the Government just need to deal with at this stage through the legislation process, but it will take years; any individual case that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court on how the court interpreted “socially and culturally integrated” will take a long time in and of itself—months into years. Where we may have challenging cases that seek to overturn what, for example, the Court of Appeal has said, by using the Supreme Court, we are talking years on years.
The Government are creating massive scope for backlog and uncertainty, and a huge opportunity for the legal profession to run a high volume of case law—it would be genuinely interesting, but would completely undermine the Government’s intention, which is to tackle backlogs, speed up the system and stop the endless need for judicial interpretation. That is what has led us to where we are, which is broader and broader interpretation.
Matt Vickers
Let us be absolutely clear about what this group of amendment is about: it is about whether a foreign national who comes to this country and commits a serious crime found to be worthy of a long sentence gets to stay here. The British public have a simple answer to that question, and so do we: they should go. The principle at stake is straightforward: if someone is a guest in this country and they rape, rob, deal drugs or abuse a child, they have forfeited the right to remain here—not after years of appeals or after a tribunal has weighed their family life against the lives of others that they have wrecked. They should go.
On Second Reading, the Government told the House that clause 20 would make it easier to remove foreign criminals and that deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances. The trouble is that the clause does not match them; for the most serious offences, it does the opposite. Behind every one of these cases is a victim: a woman who lies awake wondering whether the man who attacked her is still living a few streets away, or a family who were told that justice had been done, only to learn that the offender is now fighting to stay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire explained how the law works today. Since 2014, someone sentenced to four years or more for rape, armed robbery or dealing drugs on our streets has been unable to hide behind their family or how long they have lived here. Those exceptions are simply not enough; someone has to show very compelling circumstances over and above them. That is a high bar, and it is meant to be. The worse the crime, the narrower the door.
Clause 20 takes that line away. The four-year threshold is gone. Someone serving 10, 15 or 20 years can now walk straight into the argument that deporting them would be unduly harsh on their family. Today that route is closed to them, but under this Bill, it is opened. Let us think about what that means. The victim found the courage to give evidence, the jury convicted, the judge handed down a long sentence and then, at the end of all that, the defender gets to say that deportation would be too hard on them.
The Minister will tell us not to worry, because subsection (2) of proposed new section 117C says that the more serious the offence, the greater the public interest. That goes to one of the oldest questions in lawmaking: do you legislate with a rule or with a standard? A rule says four years, and that settles it; a standard says to weigh everything up and decide case by case. Rules give certainty; standards give discretion. In this area, discretion has been a gift to lawyers and a source of deep frustration to the public.
That is precisely why Parliament chose a rule in 2014. The whole purpose was to narrow the discretion of the courts because the balance they were striking was one the public simply did not recognise. Clause 20 hands the scales back, and we all know where weighing exercises end up: in front of a tribunal, then an appeal, then another appeal. Can the Minister point to a single line in proposed new section 117C that stops someone sentenced to four years or more relying on the “unduly harsh” exception? I have read it several times and I cannot find one.
Between 2015 and 2022, around 420 foreign offenders a year won human rights appeals against their removal. That is more than one every single day, and that is with the four-year rule still in place. The Home Office does not even publish how many had sentences of four or more years. If the Government are so confident that the clause is tougher, let them publish the numbers. Amendment 107 would put the four-year rule back, and amendment 111 would keep the existing rules on how a sentence is counted, so that the system works.
Then there is amendment 109: it is only a few words, but they tell us everything. Today, a serious offender must show very compelling circumstances “over and above” the exceptions. Clause 20 changes that to circumstances “at least as strong”. “Over and above” means more; “at least as strong” means the same. That is not tightening the test but loosening it. When Parliament changes the wording of a test, the courts are entitled to presume that it meant to change the meaning, so a tribunal reading “at least as strong” will quite properly conclude that this House intended a lower bar. We would be legislating for exactly the outcome the Government say they want to avoid. Parliament chose those words in 2014, and the courts have applied them ever since, so why change them? Did the Home Office mean to lower the bar, or did nobody notice? Neither answer should give this Committee much comfort. Amendment 109 would put the original words back.
Amendment 108 goes further than the current law; we make no apology for that. Sentence length is a rough guide to how dangerous someone is, but it is not the whole story. Guilty pleas get discounts, and the facts of individual cases mean that some very dangerous people get less than four years. Amendment 108 says that, for the worst offences, the type of crime settles it. If someone is convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorist offence or a sexual offence against a child, long residence and family routes are off the table, whatever the sentence. Let me put that plainly: a foreign national who has sexually abused a child should not be able to stand in a tribunal and argue that deporting them would be unduly harsh on their family. What about the harshness inflicted on the child?
Melanie Onn
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s points, but that is not what the Bill provides for; it certainly does not allow for what he suggests. We have had some silly games with semantics. Does he agree that this is a broad catch-all of very serious crimes, including those he is talking about?
Matt Vickers
We are saying that the Bill puts in place choices based on how long someone has been sentenced. We are saying that if someone is sentenced to more than four years, they should not be eligible. If someone commits specific offences, such as sexual offences against a child, they should not be able to rely on the exceptions. That is exactly where we are at.
Ben Goldsborough
Would the hon. Gentleman’s amendment not have the unintended consequence of creating a ranking system? Many of my constituents are concerned about the extremely high-level crimes that the Opposition rightly note, but an individual may commit a series of low-level crimes. This ranking proposal may have the unintended consequence of that not being considered and the individual getting let off the hook.
Matt Vickers
The other provisions in the Bill make the case that people can be sent down, depending on the harshness of the sentence. We are saying that if it is over four years, or if someone commits a sexual act against a child or a terrorist act, there will be no ifs or buts, and those exceptions will not apply. There will still be space under the other provisions of the Bill to take action.
An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile convicted of assaulting three teenage boys was delayed over claims that it would breach his human rights. People look at such cases and wonder whose side the system is on. On Second Reading, the Government cited the case of grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. If they accept the principle there, they should accept it here.
Last year, I tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to stop the Human Rights Act 1998 being used to frustrate deportations. The Government voted it down, 14 votes to two. Today, we are asking for far less: simply that they do not make the current law weaker.
The Government say they want deportation to be the rule. Our amendments would make it the rule. An immigration system must rest on public consent. Every time a serious offender stays because the law gave them one more argument, that consent wears thinner. Lose it, and the system loses legitimacy. Every member of the Committee has constituents who have lost faith that the system is on their side. They are not asking for a finely balanced weighing exercise; they are asking for their safety and that of their children to come first. This group of amendments does exactly that, and I commend them to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members for a very full discussion of the amendments. I have a lot to respond to, so I hope colleagues will bear with me while I try to pick up on all the points and make as much progress as I can.
I think all of us in this room will share a real commitment to the clause and this group of amendments. The clause is a huge priority; it really underlines the issue of the deportation of foreign national offenders and the exemptions through which they have sought to remain in this country. As the hon. Member for Stockton West expressed, the issue causes huge concern, fear, anxiety and outrage. This is such an important clause and such important part of the Bill and of what we are trying to do.
I also put on record the Government’s commitment on this issue; that is not to make a political point, but we have deported more than 60,000 foreign national offenders since we came to power at the 2024 elections—the highest number in a decade, and 41% higher than in the previous two-year period. I say that not to make a political point, because we are in Committee, but to underline our determination and commitment on this issue, should there be any doubt, given some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members, about our absolute determination on this issue. It is extremely important to us.
Clause 20 reforms the application of article 8 in deportation cases, restoring a proper balance between individual rights and the public interest. The current framework contains different, sentence-based tests, which act as exceptions to deportation. Where a person can meet the private and family life exceptions, or the higher test, which applies for the most serious offenders, they will not be deported. That means that, in some cases, deportation can be avoided by meeting the family or private life exceptions, without the court conducting a full consideration of all factors weighing in favour of the public interest in deportation.
The clause addresses that by requiring the courts to conduct a full proportionality assessment before it can find that deportation would be disproportionate. The public interest will therefore be considered in every deportation case before an article 8 breach can be found, rather than only in some categories of case, as at the moment. Judges will be able to block deportation only in certain exceptional circumstances. The clause retains important existing concepts, including “unduly harsh”. I appreciate some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, which I will come to, but the concept is well understood by the courts and supported by extensive case law.
Under the new framework, showing that deportation would have an unduly harsh effect is insufficient—without further consideration—to demonstrate a breach of article 8 and will no longer be the point at which an article 8 claim succeeds automatically. That is a fundamental change. The court will now have to go on to consider whether the interference with private or family life can be justified when weighed against the public interest in deportation. The new framework establishes a clear statutory framework for assessing whether deportation will be disproportionate, requiring proper weight to be given to factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offending, the person’s immigration status, the economic impact of allowing them to remain in the UK, and the wider public interest in public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime.
The effect of the reforms is to establish a clearer and more consistent framework, in which deportation may be avoided only in truly exceptional cases. For the record hereafter, I clarify that emphasis in Committee. A person will still receive an individual assessment of their circumstances, but the courts will be required—I emphasise “required”—to give proper weight to Parliament’s view that deportation is strongly in the public interest.
Before I speak to the amendments, I will refer to some of the points made in the debate. I was asked whether the clause weakens provision for more serious offenders. No, it does not; they must still meet the same tests as other offenders, and face a proportionality test. The clause provides that the more serious the offence, the greater the public interest in deportation. Again, I will say more on that when I come to the specific Opposition amendments.
I was asked why sentence thresholds are being removed. We do not need sentence thresholds if we are going to treat all deportation cases the same. The courts can still, and indeed must, take account of sentences and seriousness of offending in considering proportionality. That is required on the face of the Bill by subsection (2) of proposed new section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked, why not cover family deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971? The key point is that the exclusion of section 3(5)(b) is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article 8 is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of a foreign national whose own conduct has made them liable to deportation. A family member liable to deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act is not being deported because of their own criminality or conduct. Even if that power were used, it is appropriate that any article 8 claim made by that family should continue to be assessed under the framework set out in section 117B of the 2002 Act, rather than the deportation framework.
The hon. Member for Stockton West made a number of points. On his point about the House of Commons Library briefing, those with a sentence of over four years would previously need to establish that they meet very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions. Now they must establish that they meet an exception and that their deportation cannot be justified. We would expect such cases to fail the proportionality assessment even if they meet the exception. Our provisions enhance those deportation provisions.
I would also like to refer to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He criticised proposed new section 117C of the 2002 Act. It is important to make it clear that the public interest is in deportation unless it is not justified. That is enhanced in proposed new section 117C(2) by making it clear that the more serious the offending, the stronger the public interest is. The hon. Gentleman is right that the first exception under proposed new section 117C(4)(a) means the person’s whole life, not just their adult life. That is the same as under existing law. To his points on social and cultural integration, the onus is on the applicant to establish that. Again, that is already covered in existing legislation. Caseworkers are experienced in how to deal with that and familiar with that understanding.
I want to make some more points on the “unduly harsh” test. Again, that is in existing legislation. The Supreme Court has already interpreted it extremely narrowly. On the issue of court latitude, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised, proposed new section 117C makes it clear that deportation is in the public interest and, as I have said, that the more serious the offending, the stronger the public interest will be. It is important that courts have a clear steer on Parliament’s view of public interest, and the process of the Bill will establish that. To resist deportation, someone must meet the exceptions and establish that their deportation cannot be justified in the light of the public interest. Deportation can therefore be resisted only in clearly defined and limited circumstances.
I will move on to the amendments, and I hope to provide a bit more clarity. Amendments 107, 109 and 111 seek to impose a higher threshold for deportation for foreign criminals who receive a custodial sentence of four years or more, or who commit certain more serious offences. The amendments would require such persons to demonstrate something more than meeting the private or family life exceptional circumstances test. There should be no suggestion that we are seeking to lower the threshold for foreign criminals who are given sentences of more than four years. That is misplaced.
Clause 20 amends the current deportation framework by introducing a full proportionality exercise before an article 8 breach can be found. That will ensure that the courts are required to consider and take account of the overall public interest in deportation. All foreign nationals subject to deportation will now have to meet a two-stage test to succeed in their article 8 claim. The first stage of the test requires the person to satisfy one of three exceptional circumstances tests. Where that exceptional circumstances test is met, they must also show that the interference with their private or family life rights—as demonstrated by an exceptional circumstance—cannot be justified. The second stage of the test requires a full proportionality exercise, weighing all the factors in favour of deportation.
As I have said, clause 20 specifically states that the greater the severity of offending, the greater the public interest in deportation. That is clear. It will make it less likely that the interference with article 8 rights will outweigh the public interest in deportation. We expect the courts to give significant weight to the public interest in deporting persons with long custodial sentences and those who have committed serious offences. I also clarify for the record that exceptional circumstances are not exceptions to deportation. Now, when someone demonstrates an interference with their family or private life, they will no longer automatically avoid deportation. There will be an assessment of the public interest test—
11.25 am
The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I also remind all Members to speak slowly, loudly and clearly and, ideally, to look up while they speak. That is to support Members who are hard of hearing.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee. The motion can be debated for up to 30 minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October.
2. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 5; Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 9; Schedule 2; Clauses 10 to 13; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 14 to 17; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 October.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank all hon. Members who are taking part in the proceedings of this Committee. I have nothing substantive to add to the debate that was had yesterday on this matter. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Keir Mather.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. Members are responsible for declaring any interests, in accordance with the code of conduct, at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members wish to declare interests?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace. I have met many stakeholders through the process of the Bill.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Similarly, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and clearly the Bill covers some aspects of that work.
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
It may not be a matter of interest, but for the record and for transparency, my niece works in the aviation industry.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group on aviation.
The Chair
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses and schedules have been selected and how amendments have been grouped together for debate. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate if they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during the proceedings.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses—that is at the Chair’s discretion. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
I remind Members that decisions are taken in the order in which they appear on the Bill. That means that some amendments may be decided on considerably later than the point at which they are debated. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Air transport and airport services: rights and duties
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth.
(1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on—
(a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators,
(b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and
(c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the Regulation Action Plan, published in March 2025, target of reducing the administrative costs of regulation on business by 25% by the end of the 2024-2029 Parliament.
(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) must not impose administrative requirements on air transport service providers or airport operators the costs of which are disproportionate to the consumer protection objectives the regulations seek to achieve, having regard to the target referred to in subsection (1A).
(1C) In this section, ‘administrative costs’ means costs incurred by air transport service providers or airport operators in complying with information, reporting, documentation or other procedural requirements imposed by regulations under this section.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations under clause 1, to have regard to the Government’s target of reducing the administrative costs of regulation on business by 25% by the end of the Parliament.
New clause 2—Purpose—
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to—
(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;
(b) support economic growth in that sector; and
(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”
This new clause inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.
Alison Griffiths
Taken together, amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 2 address a single question: what is the Bill intended to achieve for British aviation? Amendment 5 would require Ministers to consider economic growth, competitiveness, investment and the regulatory burdens imposed on the sector. Amendment 6 would hold the Government to their own target for reducing the administrative cost of regulation. New clause 2 would place the Bill’s overarching purpose at its forefront: supporting a competitive, growing aviation sector while protecting consumers.
Economic growth, competitiveness and investment must be at the heart of this Bill. That is why amendment 5 is so important. It would ensure that, when Ministers exercise their considerable powers contained in this Bill, they are required to consider the consequences for growth, competitiveness and investment—I know that that is a rarity for them, but they may as well start today. How on earth can businesses be expected to make long-term investment decisions when the Government cannot even provide them with clear and consistent direction? Above all, the industry needs the confidence to expand and the certainty to invest, and a Government who are useful and whose policies are conducive to that goal, rather than being all over the place with myriad positions. Amendment 5 would clearly fulfil that goal, ensuring that Ministers consider the consequences for growth. I hope that the Minister will support it.
It is bizarre that we have to debate amendment 6 at all. The Opposition have not pulled the target in it out of thin air; it is the Government’s own target. They set it, not us. The Minister cannot ramble on in the usual way that his colleagues do about a poor inheritance; his Government made this commitment themselves. Yet bizarrely, when this matter was raised in the other place, the Minister there refused to back it—shameful, really. Do Ministers simply not care about the costs they are piling on to British businesses? Of course not. When we examine their record—regulation upon regulation; standard upon standard; requirement upon requirement—it is clear for all to see, especially the businesses that have suffered and been forced to curtail plans to grow, expand, hire and succeed. That is why we have tabled amendment 6: we are simply asking Ministers to stick to the target they set themselves.
Finally, new clause 2 would place an overarching purpose in the Bill. As we have argued throughout the consideration of this legislation, growth must be our north star in aviation policy. We want Britain to have a thriving and internationally competitive aviation sector, with airports and airlines able to invest, expand and succeed. That ambition is entirely compatible with protecting the rights and interests of passengers. Indeed, a successful aviation sector depends on passengers having confidence in the services they receive. New clause 2 would therefore make it clear that the purposes of the Bill are to promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector, to support economic growth and to protect consumers. I struggle to see why the Government would object to putting those balanced and reasonable aims in the Bill.
Amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 2 form a coherent package. They would establish a clear, pro-growth purpose, require Ministers to consider the effect of regulation on investment and competitiveness, and hold the Government to their own target for reducing administrative costs. I hope that the Minister will support them.
Keir Mather
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, to her place. It will be a pleasure to work alongside her as the Bill makes it progress through the House.
The hon. Lady’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to promoting economic growth when making regulations under the clause. Let me be clear that economic growth remains a crucial priority for this Government. Sustained growth is essential to raising living standards, supporting good jobs and funding our public services. That is why the potential impact on growth is already firmly embedded in policy development. Growth assessments require Departments to consider how proposals can maximise positive impacts and minimise negative ones, and form an essential part of the collective agreement process before new policy is introduced.
Growth is therefore considered throughout the development of policy, rather than only at the point when regulations are made. That scrutiny is reinforced through the options and impact assessment process, which requires careful consideration of the effects on business, trade and investment, the ease of doing business in the UK, and wider economic growth. The substance of the amendment is therefore already addressed through established and rigorous processes. Putting a further duty in primary legislation would not strengthen that consideration; it would duplicate obligations and processes that already apply. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
Amendment 6, also tabled by the shadow Minister, returns to the question of how the Government should account for regulatory burdens when exercising the powers under the clause. The Government’s position remains clear: reducing the cost of regulation to business is a firm, cross-Government commitment. That work is already being pursued in a co-ordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to administrative burdens, collated and published across Government. The issue is therefore not whether those costs should be controlled, but whether the amendment would add anything useful to the framework already in place.
The evidence for this Bill is also important. As the published impact assessment makes clear, its measures are expected to reduce costs to business over time. In particular, improvements to the safety rule-making framework will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency. The Bill therefore advances, rather than cuts across, the objective that amendment 6 seeks to promote. Nor would it be appropriate to place the Government’s 25% target in primary legislation. Doing so could bind Secretaries of State in future Parliaments to a target set for the present circumstances, even when subsequent policy or economic developments warrant a different approach. The Government are already acting on the amendment’s underlying objective, and the Bill itself is expected to deliver efficiencies for business. The proposed statutory provision would add rigidity, not stronger protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Lady not to press it to a Division.
Finally in this group, new clause 2 was also tabled by the shadow Minister. It would insert a purpose clause requiring the Secretary of State, when acting under the Bill, to have regard to competitiveness, growth and consumer protection. The Committee will be familiar with the Government’s position on Second Reading and in the Bill’s consideration in the other place. I will therefore focus briefly on why we remain unable to support the new clause.
The Government share the objective of supporting a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those aims already inform wider Government policy and decision making, and the Secretary of State sets out strategic priorities to the Civil Aviation Authority each year, including on the importance of supporting economic growth. The question is whether a purpose clause is the right way to secure those aims. We do not believe it is. New clause 2 would give particular prominence to a fixed and incomplete list of considerations governing every exercise of the Bill’s powers. Notably, that list does not include safety, despite its fundamental importance to aviation and the Bill.
Ministers must retain the flexibility to balance consumer protection, growth, competitiveness, safety and any other relevant factors in the light of the evidence. The explanatory statement for new clause 2 suggests that the duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority, but the drafting itself does not do so. In any event, the CAA is already subject to the statutory growth duty, requiring it to have regard to economic growth proportionately, so the new clause is unnecessary to growth and potentially restrictive in wider effect. The Government approach allows decisions to remain evidence-led, proportionate and responsive, without elevating an incomplete set of objectives above other vital considerations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause to a vote.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm—it is not yet shared by those on the Government Benches, but perhaps that will come in time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Here we are with yet another Transport Bill Committee. People often say that transport is a boring, unsexy topic—
Olly Glover
Well, indeed. Yet the Government are dedicating so much legislative time to it, which rather undermines that thesis.
I also note that a number of Government Members have already served their time in Transport Bill Committee jail, and now they are here again. I hope that is a sign of investment in their futures, rather than a punishment, because some would argue that being on a Public Bill Committee sometimes feels like a punishing, if necessary, duty—although I am sure the Minister would not endorse such seditious sentiments.
I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on the substance of these amendments, but I will just say a little about the Bill as a whole and how I hope the Committee will operate. We broadly support a large amount of the Bill, but there are some aspects that we have concerns that. Perhaps there is a little too much faith being placed in the abilities of the CAA without enough oversight of it. We would also like to see some protections for consumers and the communities affected by aviation expansion. Of course, those communities include everybody on the planet, because of the significant environmental impact that aviation has, but I will say more on that as we as we go.
As for this Committee, of course, the normal arrangement is for the Government to reject all ideas that are not their own. At this stage, however, I lay down a challenge to those on the Government Benches: could it be different this time? The new Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to embrace Liberal Democrat ideas on occasion. For example, yesterday he warmly embraced our policy of banning people listening to things on their phone in public without using their headphones. I hope the new culture initiated by the Prime Minister will be embraced by the Minister and that the Government will perhaps accept at least one of our ideas in this Committee. That is my hope; we shall see if it happens.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I rise to support amendments 5 and 6, and new clause 2, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
May I say at the outset that it is a pleasure to again be serving on a Public Bill Committee relating to transport and to be opposite the Minister, who is an extremely decent and able Minister? In previous Public Bill Committees, even when he said no, he managed to say no to the Opposition’s suggestions in a very nice and gentle way. Let us see how he does this time.
It is also a pleasure to serve again opposite the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—we served on the Railways Bill Committee together—and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield on his elevation since we last sat on a Public Bill Committee together? It is well deserved, and I wish him all the very best in his new role.
The Minister has set out his opposition to the amendments and the new clause. Although I entirely agree with him about the importance of retaining a focus on safety, consumer protection and consumer rights, which is what the Bill is about, that does not necessarily sit in contradiction to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about economic growth. It is important that we keep that in mind.
The Minister might wish on a future occasion to come back to the point about costs, but I ask him now to reflect on pages 25 and 32 of the impact assessment, which show that the monetised benefits are the two aspects that are rated red because of the costs; they are both rated as negative, because of the costs on business and the broader costs. I heard what he said about the longer-term opportunities for this legislation to drive growth. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if he addressed that point—if not in relation to this set of amendments, then perhaps in relation to a future set of amendments, where it is in scope to do so—if he does not catch the Clerk’s eye in a negative way while doing so.
Keir Mather
Just to respond briefly to a few of the points raised, I agree with the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston that economic growth and safety are not necessarily in conflict with each other. The question is, however, whether the amendments as drafted offer too prescriptive a lean towards economic growth while not duly factoring in the question of safety. When we exist in a system where economic growth is considered right through the gamut of policy development, it does not appear proportionate to me to include one to the exclusion of the other when it could be argued that the other is equally important and in some instances more important.
The right hon. Member raises a fair point about the costs to business of regulatory alignment. He is right to point to the impact assessment, and he is also correct in the sense that the initial compliance costs of adapting to new regulations create negative costs for business. I am still of the view, however, that over the long term the Government are abiding by a target to reduce administrative burdens for business. Overall, in the longer term, the Bill reduces costs. On that basis, I do not believe it is necessary to put a formal target to reduce burdens by 25% in the Bill, given the fact that, first, we might wish to go further in the future, and, secondly there are some instances in which, particularly in relation to aviation safety, we might want over a short period of time to increase the amount of regulatory compliance that is required to adapt to new and changing circumstances in the aviation sector more broadly.
Thirdly, the right hon. Member raised a point about binding successors. I might have been overly literal in my remarks. If so, forgive me. It is true that the measure does not formally bind the hands of a successive Government. The question, however, is whether setting out a purpose clause is unduly prescriptive in terms of what it does and does not lay out for future Governments. I have of course been encouraged by the Opposition Front Benchers to bear all those principles in mind. I have an overall pseudo-ideological position on how legislation of this kind should be developed, and think it is better not to fill Bills with things on their face that take away flexibility in future.
That said, the points around growth and reducing regulatory burden are significant. I thank Opposition Members for the way they have raised them; however, I do not feel the way that they are presented in the drafting of the amendments enhances the quality of the Bill, and I again ask for them to be withdrawn.
Alison Griffiths
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I do not think he has sufficiently addressed the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I think a north star is critical for the Bill. It is all very well to have a Bill, but without a purpose, what is it there for? That is an important point that we need to take into account.
On the flexibility that the Minister referenced, my right hon. Friend has already made the point that he would not be removing any flexibility in agreeing to our amendments. I also point to our new clause 2. The Minister appears to think that it negates safety at the expense of competitiveness and growth. I reiterate that its purpose is to
“protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.”
I cannot see how that could be construed as downplaying safety. With your permission, Mr Turner, I will press all three provisions to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section may not reduce the standards of service and protection available to passengers and consumers of airport and air transport services compared to any provision which those regulations replace.”
This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section do not make provision setting out lower passenger and consumer standards than current regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an "accompanying adult or carer" means a person who is—
(a) a parent or guardian of the child,
(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or
(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,
and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an "adult requiring care" means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”
This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.
Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) Where regulations modify passenger standards, including but not limited to mandatory compensation provisions, and such standards depart from equivalent assimilated law or other EU aviation standards recognised by the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must ensure that the consumer protection afforded by the replacement domestic standard is equal or superior to the standard it replaces.
(3B) In making regulations under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must keep passenger standards under continuous review to identify opportunities for enhanced consumer protection, and shall have a duty to implement such higher standards of compensation and protection wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so.”
This amendment ensures that if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Before making regulations under this section for the purpose of aligning United Kingdom law with any provision of European Union law or any international standard, requirement or practice, the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining—
(a) the provision of European Union law or international standard, requirement or practice with which the regulations are intended to align,
(b) the reasons why the Secretary of State considers such alignment to be necessary or appropriate,
(c) whether, and if so to what extent, the regulations make provision that goes beyond such alignment, and
(d) the likely impact of the regulations on passengers, air transport service providers, airport operators and competition in the aviation sector.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement before making regulations under clause 1 for the purpose of aligning UK law with EU law or international standards, explaining the basis for alignment, whether the regulations go beyond it, and their likely impact.
New clause 14—Automatic Refunds: failure to honour pre-purchased seats—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic refunds for passengers who paid for specific seats on planes but who were then allocated different seats without their consent.
(2) The scheme must ensure that the refund specified in subsection (1) is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flight's planned departure date.”
This new clause would introduce a refund scheme for passengers who have paid for seats on plane journeys but who are then allocated different seats, without their permission, by the airline, and not require the passenger to apply for the refund manually.
Olly Glover
The amendments and new clause 14 are intended to strengthen the consumer and general citizen protections that the Bill has the opportunity to provide, should our amendments be accepted.
Amendment 24 would stipulate that regulations coming from the Bill cannot create lower passenger and consumer standards than currently exist. This is important because, whether we are debating information rights, delay compensation or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, the test has to be the same: does the provision leave the passenger better protected or leave the door open to an erosion of the standards that they currently enjoy? The amendment does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government but simply asks that when Ministers use the powers that the Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar. Where the Government take a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power.
This approach is not novel; section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot do so, they must say so and explain why. That single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from European Union law were carried through undiluted, and remain in force today.
Amendment 25 would put into law that family groups cannot be separated when travelling under the same booking, ensuring that children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult. In other aspects of life, when someone makes a booking and finds that they have been seated separately from their children or family, that is not considered acceptable; the booking has to be honoured or redress has to be made.
Even on other modes of transport, that is the case. For example, on a train, if someone reserves multiple seats in the same booking, the booking system automatically tries to seat the whole party together—although admittedly, on occasion, there is disruption, or CrossCountry decides to put on a four or five-car train, ruining all that, but that is perhaps another matter. Why do those arrangements not also apply to airlines?
This issue might be more common with some airlines than others, but they can currently get away with what they are doing because there are no restrictions. We hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers being treated in that way, and particularly of passengers with disabilities being treated as a lower priority.
We are glad to hear reports that the Government have been convinced of the case that we set out for this change in the House of Lords and are now considering consulting on scrapping any charges for being seated next to children under the age of 14. However, we really believe that this requires focus, so we very much hope that the Government will view amendment 25 favourably or otherwise indicate what they are going to do instead of accepting it. Subject to the Government not being willing to accept that principle, we will press amendment 25 to a Division.
Amendment 26 would require that, if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU. For the reasons that I have outlined, it is important that we maintain our current standards as a minimum—of course, we want to increase them.
New clause 14 would support amendment 25 by introducing automatic refunds for a failure to honour pre-purchased seats.
Let me say something briefly about the Opposition’s amendment 7. I understand what the Conservative shadow Minister intends with the amendment, and I would be interested in hearing her case if it is about transparency and good governance; however, I feel there is a tendency on the Conservative Benches to table such amendments more when it comes to European Union matters than to others, which I find ironic given how often they accuse the Liberal Democrats of being obsessed with Europe. Perhaps they have a comparable obsession, but in a different direction.
I think I have said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ comments.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, amendment 7, which stands in my name, and new clause 14, which have all been grouped together.
Amendment 24 sets out an eminently sensible ambition, namely to ensure that any future regulations do not water down the passenger and consumer protections currently in force. That is an important principle and one that we recognise. Of course, as hon. Members know, the Opposition support a thriving, competitive aviation sector, but passengers must also have confidence that, when they travel, they will be treated fairly and the protections that they rely upon will be upheld.
That is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether regarding the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. Those matters deserve serious attention. As we—and particularly my Conservative colleagues in the other place—have consistently argued, accessibility should be considered from the outset rather than treated as an afterthought.
However, I have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, impose disproportionate burdens or simply fail to deliver the outcomes that they were intended to achieve. We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, while ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We welcome the overarching objective of the amendment, but given those concerns, we will abstain.
Luke Taylor
It is a pleasure to serve in your presence, Mr Turner. As a vocal advocate of flying, it falls to me to acknowledge that, currently, flying is horrible, uncomfortable and stressful. On most occasions we arrive late, in a condition such that our initial reaction is to strip off all our clothes, shower and rid ourselves of the filth that we have been stewing in for hours in an aircraft. The fact that we all aspire to fly regularly shows that it is necessary, but there is an opportunity in the Bill to remove some of the stress, worry and discomfort in as minor a way as possible, to make the experience slightly less horrible. I will speak on amendment 25 and new clause 14, which I think are fair and proportionate attempts to reduce the stress and worry of the flying and airport experience in minor and sensible ways.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I hope the Government see the wisdom of protecting parents and everybody else on an aircraft from the risk of an unaccompanied minor being seated next to a stranger. It is a reasonable expectation that someone should make a flight booking that covers themselves and their children, and that they should not be split to the four corners of the aircraft, forced to worry about persuading people to change seats to have the child under some level of control. For some parents that may be a blessing, and the thought of their seven-year-old sitting next to some poor soul at the back of the plane is attractive, but I think most of us agree that we should not subject random members of the public to that.
Amendment 25 takes a reasonable and proportionate approach to address the issue. I am interested to hear from the Minister on the Government’s approach as, unless I have missed it, it does not currently appear in the Bill. We would be minded to withdraw the amendment if the reassurance from the Minister were sufficient, particularly regarding how an adult is a person aged 16 and over, and how an adult requiring care should also be covered.
Edward Argar
The hon. Member has painted a vivid picture of the realities of air travel, and he is eloquently explaining the thinking behind the amendment. I understand the intent—it is a worthy and sensible aim—but is he not concerned that the drafting of the amendment is quite tight? There may be times when an airline, because of circumstances beyond its control—the number of passengers, seating arrangements or whatever—would fall foul of the legislation because it does not allow the necessary degree of discretion.
Luke Taylor
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are particular booking sizes, seating arrangements and issues relating to the geometry of aircraft in respect of which conflicting groups may well mean that the mathematical problem is not solvable. There would need to be redrafting to exclude those occasions, so that we do not subject airlines to fines for failure to achieve impossible requirements.
The goal of amendment 25, which relates to new clause 14, is to stop predatory charging for seat selection to avoid families and carers being split up and to give groups, families and carers confidence that they will be sitting together on the aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made the point that assigned seating is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport because it is different in an aircraft, where assigned seating is particularly important to ensure that passengers are in the right part of the cabin, to be able to identify passengers with allergies or meal preferences, or because of things like weight allowances. The amendment reflects the need to protect the passenger—the consumer—as the Bill has rightly been introduced to do, in a proportionate way.
New clause 14 relates to the fact that passengers can sometimes choose a particular seat, whether in an exit row, by a window, or at the front or back of the plane, perhaps because they want to make a connection and so be able to leg it off the flight at the very first opportunity when they land. Airlines may choose to offer that product, and that is okay. However, what they cannot do is make families and carers pay that premium fee to ensure that they are able to support loved ones and, potentially, to protect other passengers from their eight-year-old flicking his porridge or scrambled eggs across the aisle. Amendment 25, together with new clause 14, would prevent that.
It is entirely within an airline’s ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston argued that airlines might not be able to deliver due to the geometry or combination of passenger preferences, which is okay, but on occasions when an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product they paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be proved to be necessary—this new clause is necessary because the systems are able to do that today, but it does not happen. It is down to the consumer to chase an airline for a refund. They have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying their AI refund bot to get that fee returned.
Depending on the Minister’s response to amendment 25 and new clause 14, we will choose whether to push them to a vote or withdraw them.
Keir Mather
Let me start by saying that I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that we must maintain a high level of consumer protection in aviation. The intention of clause 1 is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation, which is why the Government added clause 3 in the other place following discussions with Baroness Grender.
Clause 3 provides an important safeguard that requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to the desirability of strengthening passenger rights when exercising the clause 1 power. However, requiring all future reforms to be equal or superior to current standards could have unintended consequences. A balanced package of reforms may strengthen protections in some areas while making proportionate adjustments in others.
Amendment 24 could prevent such a package from proceeding, even when it would improve outcomes for all passengers overall. Although I agree that the Bill should be used to strengthen passenger protections, rather than reduce them, clauses 1 and 3 already provide the right framework for balanced, evidence-based reform, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 24.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. We are content not to press all the amendments, except amendment 25. The Minister has given some assurances about the Government’s future intentions, which are good but not quite enough. With the Chair’s permission, we would be a grateful for a Division on amendment 25.
Alison Griffiths
We would like to press amendment 7 to a vote. I do not consider the Minister to have sufficiently addressed our concerns around the reasons and impact of the provisions in the Bill.
Olly Glover
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘accompanying adult or carer’ means a person who is—
(a) a parent or guardian of the child,
(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or
(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,
and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘adult requiring care’ means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alison Griffiths
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 42, leave out
“that include provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f)”.
This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than only regulations containing provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5 and would require all regulations made under clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 23, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Alison Griffiths
I shall also speak to amendments 9 and 10, and I will finish by briefly addressing clauses 1 to 3 stand part. The amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The proposals would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament, so they would preserve scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in the Bill, that is an entirely sensible safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be?
The regulations will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine such decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle.
I turn briefly to clauses 1 to 3. We support the objective of strengthening passenger protections, particularly for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Clause 2 provides for consultation on several important issues, including assistance for disabled passengers, protections for those with allergies, complaints procedures and the provision of suitable wheelchairs. We welcome these practical steps, and look forward to the consultation producing timely and effective action.
Clause 3 places the welcome principles of dignity, equal access, appropriate assistance and independent travel at the heart of the new framework. The importance of those objectives makes proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations all the more necessary. That is precisely what amendments 8 to 10 seek to secure, and I hope the Minister will support them.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for her amendments 8 and 9. Taken together, they would require regulations made under clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. As such, I will address them together.
I agree that regulations made under the Bill’s powers must receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. The question is not whether Parliament should scrutinise them, but what level of scrutiny is proportionate to their nature and effect. Clause 1 deliberately provides for a split approach, ensuring that Parliament’s time is focused where the potential impact is greatest. Some regulations may make only minor or technical changes—for instance, updating the name of an organisation—and it would not be proportionate to require an affirmative debate in every such case.
By contrast, regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalties could have a significant effect on businesses and individuals, and the Bill rightly reserves the affirmative procedure for those measures. The amendments would therefore apply the highest levels of scrutiny, irrespective of the substance of the regulations, placing unnecessary demands on parliamentary time without improving oversight.
Noah Law
Does the Minister find it as curious as I do that the Conservative party tabled amendment 5? It is all about having a smaller state, more effective regulation and competition in the aviation industry, but requiring the affirmative procedure for such matters would put us out of whack with other markets.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that a number of other amendments tabled by Conservative Members centre on creating an agile, dynamic aviation sector that is flexible in responding to the needs of consumers. There is an important consideration that relates to proportionality, but I do not believe that it is adequately applied in the amendments in this case.
We need to be able to enforce new consumer rights in aviation in a way that is proportionate but also effective and flexible. Creating the balance between reserving affirmative procedures for important matters that relate to things such as financial penalties or criminal sanctions is right to ensure that the oversight is there. However, the Secretary of State put in place by the Prime Minister and the majority party should be able to make regulations in an effective way that does not require Parliament to have an affirmative debate, so that we can keep an effective regulatory system that best serves the interests of the travelling public. That point was well made by my hon. Friend. The Bill’s approach is targeted and proportionate, so I ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to not to press amendments 8 and 9.
Amendment 10 would require regulations co-ordinating the concurrent exercise of direct enforcement powers by relevant authorities to be made, again, under the affirmative procedure. I recognise the importance of ensuring that Parliament applies the right level of scrutiny to delegated powers. The key point, however, is that these regulations will not create or extend enforcement powers. Instead, they will govern how existing powers are co-ordinated among authorities. The affirmative procedure would therefore not be proportionate to their limited function.
The regulations will be administrative in nature, providing a practical framework for cases in which more than one authority can act. They may, for example, cover information sharing, notification arrangements and the process for determining which direct enforcer should exercise its powers in a particular category of case. Those operational arrangements are important, but they do not warrant the highest level of parliamentary procedure. That approach is also consistent with established precedent: comparable powers to co-ordinate concurrent enforcement under competition legislation are already subject to the negative procedure. The Bill therefore provides a tested, proportionate and appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw it.
Having addressed the amendments, let me turn to clause 1, which is central to the Government’s aim of strengthening consumer protections. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to passenger rights. Existing passenger rights regulations sit within assimilated EU law, and primary legislation is required to update that. The clause creates a power to update and amend existing legislation via secondary means. It allows for regulations across a range of issues, including but not limited to delays and cancellations, denied boarding, price transparency, accessibility for disabled passengers and people with reduced mobility, and liabilities relating to injury, baggage and cargo.
Clause 1 also provides for effective enforcement to ensure that passenger rights are backed by meaningful remedies. It would enable the Government to introduce dispute resolution arrangements and powers for the Civil Aviation Authority to secure compliance, and, where appropriate, financial penalties and criminal offences. The power is subject to important safeguards; any regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalty regimes will require the approval of both Houses through the affirmative procedure. Clause 1 therefore establishes the framework needed to keep aviation consumer protections effective, proportionate and fit for the future, and I commend it to the Committee.
Alongside that, it is logical to discuss clause 2, which works in tandem with clause 1. Clause 2 will ensure that air passenger rights legislation provides appropriate protections for disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility.
Daniel Francis
Shortly after the election, the Government set up the aviation accessibility task and finish group. Clearly, a lot of work in the Bill builds on that. Disabled passenger groups want to see those measures introduced, so can the Minister confirm that clause 2 will require a consultation to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and that he will then publish the outcome of that consultation so that we can continue to build on the work of the task and finish group?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution not only here but across a range of accessibility issues in transport, particularly relating to aviation. He is right that a consultation will be undertaken as part of clause 2 within 12 months of Royal Assent. The purpose of that is to ensure that where consumer rights legislation is improved, it is done so with the unashamed ambition of making sure that people who travel with disabilities have equal access to the benefits of aviation and have a dignified and welcoming experience wherever they travel in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what this clause is designed to facilitate.
Clause 2 will place a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult on those accessibility issues, which will help to identify what changes to passenger rights legislation may be needed. The consultation must start within a year of Royal Assent, and any resulting reforms can be implemented through the regulation-making power in clause 1. The Government must consult on a non-exhaustive list of issues, including compensation for breaches of assistance requirements, protections for passengers with allergies, complaints handling and the provision of wheelchairs suitable for use on aircraft.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the provision on wheelchairs. From personal experience, a damaged wheelchair can leave someone unable to work or get around their home, and that obviously affects personal care. Alongside compensation, can the Minister say how the Government will encourage prompt repairs and perhaps temporary replacements?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for asking about how we can create a system by which those who may have responsibility for damaging mobility aids have the requisite responsibility for compensation and the process. It has been raised with me that, if a person’s mobility aid is damaged in transit when they fly, not only is the compensation not requisite—we will turn to that later in the Bill—but the process of claiming compensation and getting a new mobility aid is often torturous. It places too much pressure on the individual, and it is not done with requisite reflection on the fact that they have as much right to travel as anybody else and deserve not to have their means of accessibility damaged or broken by a private provider. Clause 1 will allow us to set out in more detail how we will deal with the kind of matters that my hon. Friend describes, but she raises an ancillary question about how the overall process should work. That was very well made. I will take that away, reflect on it and report back to her.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I appreciate the contribution already made about the provision for individuals who require wheelchair accessibility. Could the Minister elaborate on how we will protect travellers with allergies? As someone with personal experience of travelling with a child with an allergy, I know how stressful that can be.
Keir Mather
I know about my hon. Friend’s experience, and she outlined to me some of the challenges that go beyond the health risk of travelling with people with allergies and the difficulties that they face. One of those is ensuring that the right food is provided on aeroplanes. If someone is on a long-haul flight and it suddenly becomes clear that the staff do not have allergy-friendly food for them, that can make a travelling experience, which might already have been stressful, all the more difficult.
Through the consultation, the clauses that I am currently addressing will allow people with allergies to directly feed into how the consumer rights system should be designed to most adequately address their concerns and give them equal access without fear of being denied the requisite food, safety or the ability to fly alongside their friends and family. Clause 2’s consultation requirements will allow that to happen, and clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to make those changes in an agile and definitive way that will quickly provide change so that people can fly with confidence.
The Government must consult disabled passengers, persons with reduced mobility and the organisations that represent them, alongside airlines and airports—which, I must say, do a lot of good and pioneering work in this space, and this framework will allow them to go further. Clause 2 also provides that the Government may consult with others as appropriate. That may include the CAA, passenger rights advocates and groups, or wider industry stakeholders. This will enable a genuinely pan-disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence.
The Government added clause 3 during the Bill’s passage through the other place following constructive engagement with peers on how the Bill could do more to strengthen air passenger rights and promote accessibility. Clause 3 will support the Government’s aim of using clause 1 to enhance and strengthen air passenger rights in the future. It requires the Secretary of State to “have due regard” to the desirability of strengthening air passenger rights when considering whether and how to make regulations under clause 1, particularly where those rights affect disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility.
Clause 3 also establishes a clear set of principles to guide future policy development. They include that passengers should be “treated with dignity”; that disabled passengers should have access to air travel that is “equal or comparable” to that enjoyed by other passengers; that any accessibility assistance provided should meet the individual’s need; and that independent travel should be “facilitated wherever possible.”
Taken together, clauses 2 and 3 help to ensure that accessibility is embedded in the future development of passenger rights policy and remains a central consideration when the powers in clause 1 are exercised. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Alison Griffiths
I commend the Minister for his points about accessibility and disability, and as I mentioned, that is something that the Opposition support. However, I was somewhat flummoxed, nay dumbfounded, to hear Government Members and the Minister conflate parliamentary scrutiny with agility, growth and flexibility in an entirely negative way. They seem to think that this can go forward only without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what will become an Act with considerable ministerial powers.
The Opposition’s position is absolutely that parliamentary scrutiny is the essence of our democracy. With a Bill with such significant powers, it is entirely appropriate that there should be much greater parliamentary scrutiny. We can demonstrate that that is not at the expense of agility and growth, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 13—Wheelchair passports for air travel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a wheelchair passport scheme (a ‘wheelchair passport’) for disabled passengers travelling by air to, within or from the United Kingdom.
(2) A wheelchair passport issued under this section must record the passenger's mobility and assistance requirements, including the type, dimensions, and weight of any wheelchair or mobility aid used, and any other information relevant to the safe and dignified handling of the passenger and their equipment.
(3) Regulations under this section must make provision for—
(a) the form and content of a wheelchair passport, including requirements that it be available in accessible formats;
(b) the secure storage and transfer of data contained in a wheelchair passport; and
(c) the process by which a passenger may apply for, update, or appeal a decision relating to a wheelchair passport.
(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that the wheelchair passport scheme is interoperable, to the greatest extent practicable, with equivalent schemes operated by other countries or international bodies, including the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
(5) A carrier who fails to comply with a wheelchair passport issued under this section is to be treated as having committed an accessibility failure for the purposes of this section.
(6) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to promote the adoption of a common international wheelchair passport standard through engagement with the IATA by December 2028.
(7) Regulations in this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a wheelchair passport scheme enabling disabled passengers to record their mobility and assistance needs in a single portable document accepted by all air carriers to, within or from the United Kingdom to facilitate their travel needs.
Keir Mather
I will begin by addressing clause 4, which was added during the Bill’s passage in the other place to strengthen rights for disabled passengers. It removes the existing cap on compensation for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices that are lost, damaged or destroyed on domestic UK flights. For many disabled passengers, these devices are essential to their independence and daily lives, and the current compensation limits may not reflect the true cost of repair or replacement. The clause ensures that passengers travelling on domestic UK flights are able to recover compensation that more accurately reflects the value of the equipment lost or damaged. Ultimately, the clause is about making sure that disabled passengers can travel with greater confidence that, if something goes wrong, they will not be left without the equipment they rely on or forced to absorb an unfair financial loss.
On new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I thank him for returning to the important issue of transporting wheelchairs during air travel. The Government agree that disabled passengers should be able to communicate their mobility and assistance requirements clearly, and that wheelchairs and mobility aids must be handled safely and with dignity. The question is how best to secure practical and long-lasting improvements, rather than placing a particular scheme in primary legislation before the work already under way has concluded.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the transport of mobility aids and wheelchairs was considered by the aviation accessibility task and finish group, and is now being taken forward through the aviation accessibility implementation group. This industry-led working group is examining mobility aid design and handling and has developed the electric mobility aids air travel pack, which gives passengers, airlines and ground handlers the information they need in advance of a journey. The group is promoting wider use of that tool and considering how passengers’ individual requirements can be captured more effectively to support a more tailored experience.
Since this proposal was debated in the other place, the Government have also acted through the Bill. We introduced clause 2 in the Lords, placing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility matters. This issue could be considered as part of that consultation, ensuring that any future reforms are evidence based and take account of passengers’ and stakeholders’ experience. It would therefore be premature to prescribe a wheelchair passport scheme now. We should instead allow the implementation group’s work and statutory consultation to determine what measures are necessary, workable and proportionate. Should the evidence support the need for legislation, clause 1 provides a route to acting following full consultation. The new clause instead risks cutting across that work rather than strengthening it. On that basis, I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and I ask him not to press his new clause.
Luke Taylor
I thank the Minister for his words, particularly on new clause 13. We very much welcome the Government’s movement in the other place to introduce greater protections for disabled airline passengers following pressure from a cross-party group of lords. The removal of the compensation cap for damaged wheelchairs on domestic flights is a great step forward for accessibility. For a disabled person, a wheelchair is not merely luggage; it is a vital extension of their body and their independence.
I am glad, though, to pick up the noble Baroness Brinton’s amendment on wheelchair passports. She has been a strong advocate for accessibility for many years, and we are glad to support her in her campaign. I invite all Members to read the exchanges in the Lords to see and understand the lived experience—I am sure that we will hear some of that here too—of disabled passengers struggling with complex, unwieldy and challenging circumstances at various airports around the country. I am glad that we are getting a focus on that here.
Over the past few years, the Department for Transport has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey, with one brief check at check-in to ensure that the wheelchair—and, if relevant, the battery—and the passport match. Once someone had such a passport, the details could be in the airport’s system and the airline’s system forever. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State has to work with the International Air Transport Association, and the other countries and the airlines that are part of that organisation, to make this happen, because it will not work if only the UK does it.
I note that IATA’s international guidance already provides for a mobility aid passport, but it is self-evident that that is not sufficiently well understood or implemented. The Minister talked about a mobility pack and an investigation that is being undertaken to design appropriate measures. I encourage him to refer back to the IATA mobility aid passport to understand how that can be incorporated, improved and strengthened, and to work with airlines and international organisations to make sure that the aims of the new clause are reflected in the lived experience of those who, time and again, when they approach an airline check-in desk, have to struggle through the same set of questions and the same arguments, and—again, I reflect on the experiences that were shared in the Lords—pull out the guidance that they have printed and explain it. That is just not acceptable. Whether it is through regulation, through the wording of customer protections or by making it incumbent on airlines and ground handlers to understand and implement these measures, we all need to make sure that the airline industry is implementing and improving things for those who rely on mobility aids, so that they are able to experience flying as miserably as the rest of us.
Daniel Francis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Shortly after my election the year before last, I was delighted to introduce my private Member’s Bill, the Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, and I welcome the fact that this Bill—and, in particular, the clauses that we have been debating—encompasses a number of its measures. Accessibility in air travel is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of rights, dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their mobility or physical condition, can enjoy the freedom to travel.
I pay tribute to my fellow chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, Baroness Grey-Thompson, for the work that she has done on the Bill in the Lords, and for her work as chair of the aviation accessibility task and finish group, which this Government set up shortly after our election to ensure that the work on these safeguards started, and which reported back last year. As Members know, as well as being chair of the APPG I am the parent of a wheelchair user, so I live and see that lived experience on a daily basis. If you will allow me, Mr Turner, I want to place on the record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood, who is with us in the Gallery, and their colleagues at the Rights On Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of the issues that have led us to this place.
The clauses that we have already discussed will require Ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights, but clause 4 will, vitally, remove the compensation limit for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices. At present, the limit can be around £1,500, and someone can be required to battle for several months through the courts, with no real understanding of their legal rights. Many wheelchairs—even my 13-year-old’s—are worth more than £1,500 and, as I have said to the Minister, I am aware of a Member in the other place whose wheelchair is worth six times the current limit, so there really is a need to remove it.
As well as causing complexity, the current arrangements do put people off flying. Unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, my daughter has not flown for 12 years, because I dread the thought of going through the process, quite frankly. Strengthening these rights will not only help people during their journeys, but encourage people to undertake them again. I welcome the measures on compensation rights for lost, damaged or destroyed wheelchairs or mobility aids.
Currently, airlines are not required to cover the full cost of repairs, and the limit for international flights will continue to be set in the Montreal convention; the limit in the Bill will be only for internal flights. There remains work to be done with regard to the Montreal and Warsaw conventions. Those longer flights fall outside the Bill, and there will continue to be some pressures for passengers travelling on them. The Minister knows I will continue to press the Government on working with international partners to press for compensation. We cannot, of course, encompass that in the Bill, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what we can do on that matter. The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but it has been inhibited by not having the power to take proper action against airlines. Taking businesses to court has been a lengthy process, so I strongly welcome the measures in clause 4.
I concur with the Minister on new clause 13 from the Liberal Democrats. We have themes 3 and 4 of the report from the aviation task and finish group on mobility aids design and handling. We continue, through consultation and the Bill, to look at how those could be incorporated. I will not name airlines, but there are good examples of airlines that are following that guidance and that are ahead of the curve. Of course, there are also airlines that frankly need to step up to the plate.
New clause 13 is well intentioned, but there is good practice out there. There is work stemming from theme 4 in the report submitted by the task and finish group. As the Minister said, there will be the consultation, as we saw in clause 2.
Luke Taylor
We accept that huge steps have been taken. As somebody who has particular experience, does the hon. Member see the challenge around training airline check-in staff and ground handlers? What does he see as the way to achieve the aims and goals that we have? We can talk about regulation and legislation until the cows come home, as we are paid to do, but how does he see implementation on the ground, as someone who lives in this world and struggles with different airlines, some of which implement measures well, while others do not? I am interested to hear how he suggests we break through that and feed that back to the working groups so that it can really understand the trick to this.
Daniel Francis
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are themes within the aviation task and finish group report on that matter. Training is in theme 1, and passenger information is in theme 2. So there are recommendations there. There will be the consultation. We need to look at the good examples—as I said, I will not mention individual airlines, but I will tell the Minister later. We can feed that in and look at it.
However, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, there is also complexity. Under the current arrangements, we would end up with that passport being used for internal flights and for flights leaving the United Kingdom, but it would not apply to people returning on a flight from overseas to the United Kingdom. As a user, I think that that would cause some confusion. As a London MP, I know my rights on a Transport for London bus, and I quote the big red book to bus drivers if they are not upholding the rights of a wheelchair user. I know my rights on the railway. I think it would be hugely confusing to have one set of rights for a flight leaving the UK and not the same set of rights for returning.
Luke Taylor
The hon. Gentleman has invited me on to the point we raise in the new clause, about the need to work with IATA to ensure that this is part of either the mobility aid passport or a separate wheelchair passport structure, so that it protects passengers when they fly both from and to UK and EU airports. A theme to pick up on later is that it is common for aviation to be asymmetrical and that covering flights between different jurisdictions is difficult. Therefore, working with international organisations, and being rule makers and influencers rather than sitting back and being rule takers, is the right way to proceed.
Daniel Francis
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It is the same as the issues within the Montreal convention. We cannot put those or the issues with IATA in the Bill. We need to leave it to Government and Ministers to consult and work to strengthen those rights. That is why I would not support them being in the Bill. I support the measures in clause 4, but I ask Ministers to go away, look at the Montreal convention, have conversations with IATA and continue to strengthen rights in this area.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak briefly to clause 4. A wheelchair is clearly different from other pieces of luggage. For disabled passengers, it is what gives them their independence and allows them to travel with dignity. When an airline loses or damages someone’s wheelchair, the consequences can be serious and immediate. As such, it is only right that the passenger is properly compensated rather than being subject to the limits designed for ordinary baggage. We therefore welcome this clause’s inclusion in the Bill.
Keir Mather
I will pick up on a few points from the debate, although I do not feel I have much more to add, given the quality of the conversation between the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It genuinely showed the Committee process at its best in terms of deliberative policymaking.
I turn first to the point raised about the Montreal convention, because my hon. Friend and the hon. Member were right to point out that the lifting of the compensation cap on damaged wheelchairs and mobility aids in the Bill applies only to domestic UK flights. That is because doing the same for international flights would require a change to the Montreal convention, which is an international treaty that the UK is party to through the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Although my hon. Friend set out the limitations of how far the Bill can go, I reassure the Committee that I take this issue very seriously and want the UK to use its phenomenal reputation in international fora as a leader in aviation policy. I personally met the UK’s representative at the ICAO, William Gatward, and discussed its importance. We have agreed to explore ways to discuss compensation caps through the Montreal convention in the appropriate fora at the ICAO, and I would be glad to keep Members updated on that work.
I again thank my hon. Friend for his contributions. He is incredibly experienced in this field, and he is right to point out that many of the recommendations he put forward in his Aviation (Accessibility) Bill have found their way through to this piece of legislation. That is a credit to his perseverance and dogged determination to do right on behalf of the people he represents, and the people with disabilities who travel and their families across the United Kingdom.
I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out so clearly his perspective on wheelchair passports. We have had a productive conversation about where some of the limitations are, including for return flights. We are also working with that limitation when it comes to the compensation cap through the Montreal convention. However, I think it is appropriate for such issues to form part of the consultation clause in the Bill, and I would be glad to have a conversation with the hon. Member about how we take that forward. We should certainly also consider working it into IATA processes.
I think that my point in my original comments still stands, in that the aviation accessibility implementation group is exploring a lot of these issues in detail. I would like to see the outcome of those considerations before we move forward, but the Bill provides us with a lot of tools to make purposeful progress in that space once we have got to grips with its conclusions.
However, the hon. Member raised a very important and more general point about aviation accessibility in the United Kingdom—about the training of airline staff and inconsistent treatment across the domestic aviation sector. He raised that in regard to those who travel with wheelchairs and who get inconsistent treatment in terms of storage and the facilitation of their independence in travel arrangements. I visited Bristol airport and had a really productive conversation about people who travel with stoma bags fitted. There is often not enough training and awareness when they go through baggage search about the implications that that can have, and about how searches can be carried out in ways that respect people’s dignity and privacy.
The hon. Member is right to point out that people who travel with accessibility requirements or disabilities should not have to read the rulebook to members of staff. However, to look at that through a positive lens, it produces an obligation on the Department for Transport and our private sector stakeholders to think collaboratively about how we can improve consumer standards and create a minimum baseline for their enforcement, which this Bill facilitates. There is also a broader conversation about how we facilitate better training, awareness and sensitivity for airport staff who, the vast majority of times, are trying to do the right thing.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Another group of people who need to be considered are those with diabetes—particularly type 1 diabetes—who have medical equipment on them that cannot go through the scanner. That sometimes creates a problem at airports and other terminals. It would be really helpful to hear about any awareness-raising the Government intend to do.
Keir Mather
From travelling with a close family member with type 1 diabetes, I know about the pressure and the worry that can be caused by travelling with needles and insulin, so that should also factor into the conversations.
Amanda Hack
To add to that, travelling with an EpiPen is also incredibly problematic. Airlines often have different regulations setting out what a person should take and how they should prove that they need to carry an EpiPen. Families often need to get a receipt from their GP, which can cost up to £50, to prove that they are EpiPen carriers, so looking at this issue in the round is really important.
Keir Mather
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use that as a springboard to raise another piece of the puzzle: the guidance given to GPs about the advice they give patients when they are diagnosed with a particular condition.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
May I kindly suggest that the guidance should also be extended to pharmacists, given that we will be supplying the medicine?
Keir Mather
My officials will be getting nervous, because we are creating lots of extra considerations. That said, I think hon. Members’ points are very well made. They speak to the fact that the provisions in the Bill—the consultation and the agility of the Secretary of State’s consumer protection-making powers—allow us to advance across a range of issues that affect not just those with disabilities or additional needs but everyone who uses our aviation sector, and to improve their rights in a meaningful and purposeful way.
I hope I have sufficiently answered the questions of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. I have little more to add on clause 4, other than that it will help us address an issue that desperately needs to be dealt with by ensuring that people who use wheelchairs and mobility aids can travel with confidence in the knowledge that, if their devices are damaged, they will get the compensation they deserve. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 29, line 16, at end insert—
“(30A) After section 202 (appeals), insert—
‘202A Independent review of notices given by the Civil Aviation Authority
(1) This section applies where the Civil Aviation Authority gives a relevant notice.
(2) A person to whom the notice is given may, before bringing an appeal under section 202, request a review of the notice by an independent reviewer.
(3) The Secretary of State must appoint or designate one or more independent reviewers for the purposes of this section.
(4) A person may not act as an independent reviewer in relation to a notice if that person was involved in the decision to give the notice.
(5) On a review under this section, the independent reviewer may recommend that the Civil Aviation Authority—
(a) confirms the notice,
(b) varies the notice, or
(c) withdraws the notice.
(6) The Civil Aviation Authority must consider the recommendation and publish its decision.
(7) Where a person requests a review under this section, the time for bringing an appeal under section 202 begins from the date on which the Civil Aviation Authority publishes its decision under subsection (6).’”
This amendment would create an independent review stage before an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session in respect of direct enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Schedule 1.
Clause 6 stand part.
Keir Mather
There is a lot of talking from me about this part of the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. Clause 5 is another part of the Government’s objective of strengthening consumer protection in the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively.
The CAA’s current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource-intensive. The clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take direct enforcement action where appropriate. That means that, when passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act quicker and secure better outcomes for consumers.
The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA’s enforcement activity, which were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place. The Bill now requires the CAA to report on the use of the powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, ensuing appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and giving passengers greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.
Amendment 11, tabled by the shadow Minister, would introduce an independent review of a CAA direct enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I agree with the underlying principle that organisations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA’s decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation. That could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event. It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction.
The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance. Where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Schedule 1 gives effect to clause 5, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers. The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, while also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause 5, setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively, and I commend it to the Committee.
Finally in this grouping, clause 6 ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity. It does so by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA’s consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause 6 does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines; rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced.
Olly Glover
I want to say a bit about the Conservative amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is a sensible amendment. We are somewhat perplexed by the logic of the Government’s not being keen on it, given that in the Railways Bill the Government put in an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by Great British Rail or the Office of Rail and Road.
Using the same principle, logic would suggest that the Government should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court procedures—opportunities that, to us, would quite sensibly introduce an element of peer review to ensure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA made sense before it got to the courts. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his support, and indeed the Minister for recognising that the underlying principle is absolutely the right one—that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. It is not administrative, as he argued; we should be ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury.
Clause 5 and schedule 1 give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause 6 brings the existing rules on banned air carriers and informing passengers which airline will operate their flight within the consumer protection enforcement framework. We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe that the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA's decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name.
The Opposition have tabled the amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the route for challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I must say I think that that is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings. That is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve.
We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice could be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, while helping to ensure that the process was fair and proportionate. Importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remained dissatisfied. It is an entirely sensible safeguard; I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their contributions. In the first instance, if redress to the courts is still available when somebody against whom there is an enforcement action is dissatisfied, that speaks to the fact that having these enforcement abilities does not quite result in an effective way of removing the need for the court process.
There is also the point about the arrangement that exists through the Railways Bill on how we make decisions between GBR and the ORR. This is direct enforcement of protections, which is important both for the aviation safety regime and for consumers who fly; it is not a determination on commercial matters. In a railway context, GBR needs to have a strong ability to be able to work in a holistic way to support track and train together.
The point still stands that this would create an uneven framework. It would add a review process for CAA notices, but no equivalent would be issued by other direct enforcers. The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with passenger rights, reflecting on the gravity of some of the issues we have already discussed, but there is a question around making sure that CAA action is not disproportionate.
Like the CMA, the CAA will need to make clear how it is going to use its powers. It will have to follow a set of rules to ensure that its actions are proportionate and correct. On that basis, I do not believe that the level of oversight set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, in her amendment is proportionate. I urge her to withdraw it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA
Amendment proposed: 10, in schedule 1, page 23, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.—(Alison Griffiths.)
This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Charlie Dewhirst
Given the time constraints in the programme order, Mr Turner, what is the best way to proceed?
The Chair
We will stop dead on 11.25 am. The learned Clerk has a form of words for me to read, which I expect will appear in front of me at the right time. We will start consideration of the sixth group of amendments.
Clause 7
Review of airport drop-off charges
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 7, page 6, line 31, leave out “six” and insert “12”.
This amendment would increase the amount of time available to complete the review of the impact of airport drop-off charges to 12 months.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 6—Airport drop-off charges: duty to publish proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.
(2) The cap contained in the proposals published under subsection (1) must be £5.
(3) In this section, ‘drop-off charge’ means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a £5 airport drop-off cap at UK airports.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Keir Mather
It is a shame that we are running out of time just as we hit such an exciting part of the Bill: the Government amendments relating to the review of airport drop-off charges. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill was amended in the other place to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services and to publish that review within six months of Royal Assent. Let me be clear at the outset that the Government are committed to undertaking that review. We recognise that airport drop-off charges are an issue of interest to passengers, parliamentarians and others, and we agree that it is important to establish a clear evidence base to inform any decision making.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the Minister for being typically generous in giving way. I suspect that all in the room will have received complaints from constituents about either very high charges for dropping off—I had one recently at East Midlands airport—or fines related to opaque regulations about dropping off at airports. Nothwithstanding the exact wording here, is the Minister open to reflecting on not just drop-off charges, but penalty notices associated with drop-off areas and charges at airports?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that challenge and for not encouraging me to pre-empt whatever the terms of any particular review might be. That being said, I believe that the general basket of issues requires close attention, one of them in the broader terms to which he speaks: transparency for those who pay airport drop-off charges. That could relate to penalties as much as to the process of paying, to signage at the airport or to other provision such as free public transport. I expect that matters of that kind would be of interest as part of the review.
We do not believe, however, that the six-month timetable attached would allow sufficient time to carry out a meaningful and robust piece of work. There is currently no single, comprehensive source of evidence for the impacts of airport drop-off charges across the United Kingdom. A credible review will require engagement with airports, passengers, accessibility groups and other stakeholders, alongside research and analysis of the available evidence. A rushed review would risk producing limited findings and would not do justice to the concerns that have been expressed.
The Government amendment therefore extends the period for completing the review from six months to 12 months after Royal Assent. That additional time will allow the Government to undertake a more thorough and evidence-based assessment. While the detailed scope of the review will be developed in due course, it could include, as I said, consideration of other issues such as affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. It could also examine the role that revenue from drop-off charges plays in supporting airport operations and infrastructure, and the extent to which such charges encourage modal shift so that customers use public transport and other sustainable transport options when travelling to the airport. In doing so, however, it is important that the wider context should be recognised.
Most UK airports are privately owned and operated businesses. Decisions about parking and drop-off arrangements are generally commercial matters for airport operators. We know that parking revenue is often used to support investment in airport infrastructure and services to the benefit of airport users. Parking and drop-off arrangements are also subject to consumer protection legislation. The Government amendment ensures that Parliament will receive the findings on the impact of the charges, based on a strong and credible evidence base.
Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedule 1; Clauses 8 to 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 13; Schedule 3; Clauses 14 to 16; Schedule 4; Clause 17; Schedule 5; Clause 18; Schedule 6; Clauses 19 to 25; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 26 to 30; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 October.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. A Member who has put their name on the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. They will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, that is at the Chair’s discretion. I remind Members that the selection list shows how amendments and new clauses have been grouped for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses take place in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.
Clause 1
Sporting events framework
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the delivery authority provisions.”
New clause 1—Delivery authority regulations—
“(1) Regulations under section 2(2) which apply the delivery authority provisions to a sporting event may establish a delivery authority.
(2) A delivery authority established under this section is to be a body corporate.
(3) The general functions of a delivery authority are to—
(a) prepare for the sporting event,
(b) make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management before, during or after the sporting events of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event,
(c) ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and
(d) ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the sporting event.
(4) The regulations may—
(a) appoint a delivery authority as a local planning authority,
(b) apply the following provisions in relation to a delivery authority as they apply to an urban development corporation—
(i) section 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (power for Secretary of State to make order appointing urban development corporation as local planning authority), and
(ii) section 33 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (power for Secretary of State to disapply Part 2 of the Act to urban development corporation).”
New clause 2—Delivery authority: transfer schemes—
“(1) If the Secretary of State thinks it expedient in order to enable a delivery authority to carry out its functions, the Secretary of State may make a transfer scheme.
(2) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme providing for the transfer to delivery authority of specified property, rights and liabilities of another public body at a time specified in the scheme.
(3) A direction of the Secretary of State under subsection (2) shall specify a date by which the transfer scheme is to be submitted.”
New clause 3—Delivery authority: dissolution—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the dissolution of a delivery authority.
(2) An order under this section may, in particular—
(a) provide for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities of a delivery authority to—
(i) the Secretary of State, or
(ii) any other person;
(b) make provision enabling a person to receive anything transferred under paragraph (a) (and that provision shall have effect despite any other enactment or instrument);
(c) establish a body corporate;
(d) make consequential, incidental or transitional provision which may, in particular—
(i) provide for anything done by or in relation to a delivery authority to have effect as if done by or in relation to another person;
(ii) permit anything (which may include legal proceedings) which is in the process of being done by or in relation to a delivery authority when a transfer takes effect, to be continued by or in relation to another person;
(iii) provide for a reference to a delivery authority in an instrument or other document to be treated as a reference to another person;
(iv) amend an enactment.
(3) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section providing for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to a person unless the person has consented to the transfer.
(5) An order under this section—
(a) may transfer rights and liabilities relating to employees, but
(b) shall not affect the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
(6) The Secretary of State may not make an order by virtue of subsection (5)(a) unless satisfied that sufficient notice has been given to enable compliance with any applicable requirement of those regulations.
(7) An order under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
New schedule 1—The Delivery Authority Provisions—
“Part 1
Constitutions
Membership
1 (1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) appoint the members of a delivery authority, and
(b) appoint one of the members as Chair.
(2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure that a delivery authority has neither less than 7 nor more than 11 members at any time.
(3) In appointing members of a delivery authority the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of their having experience relevant to—
(a) the nature of a delivery authority’s functions, and
(b) the places in relation to which they are likely to be exercised.
Tenure
2 (1) A person shall hold and vacate office as Chairman or other member of a delivery authority in accordance with the terms of appointment (subject to this Schedule).
(2) The Chair or another member of a delivery authority may resign by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
(3) The Chair or another member of a delivery authority may be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the grounds that the Secretary of State thinks that the Chair or other member is unable, unfit or unwilling to discharge the functions of the office.
(4) A person who ceases, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph 3, to be Chair or another member of a delivery authority may be reappointed.
Staff
3 (1) A delivery authority must appoint a chief executive.
(2) A delivery authority—
(a) may not appoint a person as chief executive without the Secretary of State’s approval, and
(b) may (subject to sub-paragraph (a)) appoint the Chair as chief executive.
(3) A delivery authority must appoint a finance director.
(4) A delivery authority may not appoint a person as finance director without the Secretary of State’s approval.
(5) A delivery authority may appoint a director of transport.
(6) A delivery authority may not appoint a person as director of transport without the Secretary of State’s approval.
(7) A delivery authority may appoint other staff.
Committees
4 (1) A delivery authority may establish a committee.
(2) A committee—
(a) must include a member of the delivery authority,
(b) may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, include one or more persons who are not members of the delivery authority, and
(c) may not include staff of the delivery authority.
(3) A committee of a delivery authority may establish a sub-committee.
(4) A sub-committee—
(a) must include a member of the delivery authority,
(b) must include a member of the committee that established the sub-committee,
(c) may include one or more members of other committees,
(d) may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, include one or more persons who are members neither of a committee of the delivery authority nor of the delivery authority, and
(e) may not include staff of the delivery authority.
Status
5 The Authority shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
Part 2
Proceedings
Delegation
6 A delivery authority may delegate a function to—
(a) a member,
(b) an employee,
(c) a committee, or
(d) any other person.
7 Where a function is delegated to a committee, the committee may delegate it to—
(a) a member of the delivery authority,
(b) an employee of the delivery authority,
(c) a member of the committee,
(d) a sub-committee, or
(e) any other person.
Secretary of State: guidance and directions
8 (1) In exercising its functions a delivery authority must—
(a) have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State, and
(b) comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State.
(2) A direction may, in particular—
(a) require the delivery authority to accept or assume specified duties, rights or liabilities under contracts,
(b) require the delivery authority to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before taking action of a specified kind,
(c) require the delivery authority to provide information,
(d) relate to the employment of staff, or
(e) with the consent of the Treasury, relate to—
(i) the form of accounts, or
(ii) methods and principles for the preparation of accounts.
Self-regulation
9 A delivery authority may, subject to this Schedule—
(a) regulate its own procedure and that of its own committees and sub-committees (and in particular may specify a quorum for meetings), and
(b) enable committees and sub-committees to regulate their own procedure (including, in particular, the specification of a quorum for meetings) subject to any provision made by the delivery authority.
Conflict of interests
10 A member or employee of a delivery authority who is involved in the exercise of the delivery authority’s functions in relation to land may not participate in deliberations or decisions of the delivery authority acting as a local planning authority in relation to that land.
Reporting
11 (1) The Secretary of State may require a delivery authority to submit a report on the exercise of the delivery authority’s functions at any time.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of each report received under this paragraph.
Saving
12 The validity of proceedings of a delivery authority, a committee or a sub-committee is not to be affected by—
(a) a vacancy among its members, or
(b) a defect in the appointment of a person as Chairman or member.
13 The Secretary of State may by order make any consequential provision to this Schedule as is necessary.
Part 3
Money
Income
14 (1) The Secretary of State may give financial assistance to a delivery authority if he thinks that other sources of financial assistance will or may be insufficient for a purpose.
(2) Financial assistance under sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) may take the form of grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, and
(b) may be given on conditions (which may include conditions about repayment with or without interest).
15 A delivery authority may accept gifts.
16 The power under paragraph 14 may only be exercised if the House of Commons has approved the financial assistance by resolution.
Remuneration, &c.
17 (1) A delivery authority may pay to the Chair, another member or a member of a committee or sub-committee—
(a) such remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine, and
(b) such travelling and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) A delivery authority may pay to or in respect of the Chair or another member such sums as the Secretary of State may determine by way of, or in respect of, pensions, allowances or gratuities.
(3) If the Secretary of State thinks that there are special circumstances that make it right for a person ceasing to hold office as Chair or member of a delivery authority to receive compensation, the delivery authority may pay to the person such compensation as the Secretary of State may determine.
18 (1) The delivery authority may pay sums to or in respect of a member or former member of staff by way of or in respect of—
(a) remuneration,
(b) allowances,
(c) pensions,
(d) gratuities, or
(e) compensation for loss of employment.”
Mr French
I am pleased to open the first day of the Committee on the Sporting Events Bill for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the widespread engagement I have undertaken with stakeholders, including at events, while shadowing the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
I appreciate that some of these amendments were moved in the other place and defeated, but we remain of the view that there is a need for a mechanism to enable the creation of a delivery authority for major events such as the world cup or the Olympics, with a northern bid mooted. In a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, included in his final King’s Speech a commitment to introducing a sporting events Bill. Luckily for us, even stopped clocks are right twice a day. As hon. Members will know, in years gone by His Majesty’s Government have introduced event-specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020.
We agree that this Bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK’s best exports to be even better. However, it was the Government’s intention that this framework should be used only for sporting events that do not regularly take place and that are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, the Government were defeated in the other place, and we will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British grand prix at Silverstone or golf’s original championship, the Open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so.
Hon. Members will know that primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and it was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting venues, and the infrastructure and transport planning. That required, as indeed will many of these events, significant cross-sector efforts bringing together national governing and representative bodies such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association, local government, including the host cities, and central Government Departments. There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land and improve transport links so that spectators can get there. As it stands, new primary legislation would be required if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event. That undermines the aim of the Bill, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events to ensure their most efficient delivery.
These amendments, new clauses and new schedule would create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. They would not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority, but they would give the Secretary of State the ability to do so without undertaking the whole process that this Bill aims to avoid.
Under new clause 1, a delivery authority would:
“(a) prepare for the sporting event,
(b) make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management before, during or after the sporting events of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event,
(c) ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and
(d) ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the sporting event.”
Moreover, our proposals would set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. That includes a membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 2 of the new schedule would provide procedural rules for delegation by such authorities, and it would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the authority’s progress. Finally, part 3 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, by resolution of the House.
I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments. If she believes that, once enacted, the Bill will negate the need for any further primary legislation, surely it must try to cover the likely requirements of future events. Some of these events, particularly the largest irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country. That is why I commend these amendments to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part.
The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the economic and social benefits of these occasions are felt across the country. This framework Bill has a range of powers, including on ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. This will help to improve our competitiveness when bidding for major sporting events, helping to bring more iconic sporting moments to the UK. The Bill will enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event-ready.
The Government amendments seek to refine the Bill following its amendment in the other place to ensure that, where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can also be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events, as we will discuss later in Committee.
The 2028 UEFA European championship will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this Bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin. The tournament is projected to bring a sixfold return on public investment. Forty per cent of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the Government-backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. The tournament shows that major sporting events do far more than entertain; they drive economic growth, foster national pride and inspire young people. The Bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come.
The shadow Minister’s amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill a model for a dedicated delivery body. While the Government recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed. First, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up on a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement.
Conversely, a special-purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football authorities to deliver Euro 2028. That is an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament overwhelmingly relies on existing stadia and infrastructure, without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion that a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must similarly be determined by what is targeted and proportionate for the specific needs and requirements of an event in order to maximise effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. As such, although many of the shadow Minister’s recommendations are eminently sensible, the amendments would unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, and particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted in every scenario. Where greater oversight is required, the Government already have the requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body that is subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny—the Olympic Delivery Authority was regularly subject to such scrutiny.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The Opposition have set out our position and our concerns. We absolutely understand the Minister’s point regarding Euro 2028. The amendment was primarily aimed at the likes of the Olympics. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (‘the industrial action provisions’)”.
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.
New clause 5—Industrial action regulations—
“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.
(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.
(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.
(4) In subsection (2), the ‘minimum period’ means the period—
(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and
(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”
This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.
New schedule 2—Industrial action provisions—
“Part 1
Offences
Industrial action transport offences
1(1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or
(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action,
at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph, a ‘transport worker’ means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) airport operation services;
(b) bus services;
(c) light rail services;
(d) passenger railway services.
(5) In this paragraph—
‘airport operation services’ has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;
‘bus services’ has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;
‘light rail services’ means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—
(a) Blackpool Tramway;
(b) Docklands Light Railway;
(c) Edinburgh Trams;
(d) Glasgow Subway;
(e) London Trams;
(f) London Underground;
(g) Manchester Metrolink;
(h) Nottingham Express Transit;
(i) Sheffield Supertram;
(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;
(k) West Midlands Metro;
‘passenger railway services’ means—
(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—
(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),
(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,
(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or
(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or
(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.
(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;
(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.
(7) In this paragraph—
‘services for the carriage of passengers by railway’ has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);
‘locomotive’, ‘network’, ‘rolling stock’, ‘station’, ‘track’ and ‘train’ have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to ‘railway’ in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph (d);
‘railway’ has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section;
Industrial action local authority offences
2(1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or
(b) permit the carrying out of such action,
at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph—
‘relevant local authority worker’ means an employee of a relevant local authority;
‘relevant local authority’ means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;
‘relevant local authority area’ means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;
‘specified period’ means the ‘minimum period’ specified in regulations under section (Industrial action regulations).
Part 2
Enforcement
Penalties on conviction
3(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
Power to impose financial penalties
4(1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.
(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.
(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.
(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,
(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or
(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.
(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.
Notice of intention to impose financial penalty
5(1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.
(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.
(3) The notice of intention must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.
Right to make representations
6(1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.
Final notice
7(1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a ‘final notice’) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
8(1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.
Appeals
9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty;
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) The appeal may be made—
(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.
(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(5) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
10(1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.
(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and
(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.
Proceeds of financial penalties
11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.
No protection if union induces industrial action
12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.
Part 3
Interpretation
13 In this Schedule—
‘industrial action’ means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;
‘specified period’ means the ‘minimum period’ specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];
‘strike’ means any concerted stoppage of work;
‘trade dispute’ has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 7, 8 and NC5, and sets out penalties for breaching them.
Mr French
The amendments, new clause and new schedule in this group are designed to make sure that maliciously timed strikes do not undermine the entirety of a major sporting event, as defined by the Bill. Any event covered by the framework established by the Bill is, by the definitions in clause 3, likely to be of
“significant international or national interest”
or
“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it.”
Industrial action during such an event would wholly undermine the objectives of the Bill.
Amendment 7 would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the framework is applied to a sporting event. Amendment 8 would require the “appropriate national authority” to apply the industrial action provisions when it applies one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause 5 defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions. New schedule 2 sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendments 7 and 8 and new clause 5, and sets out the penalties for breaching those provisions.
Taken together, the amendments seek to establish provisions related to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework established by the Bill. I am sure that Labour Members may sit upright a little when they hear these amendments, but I assure them that the amendments have been tabled in the spirit of the Bill and its intended outcome. They would apply only to sporting events operating under the framework.
However, in the mind of the Opposition, the amendments are not optional extras or measures to be applied to some events and not others. They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. Through the Bill, the Government seek to establish a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new primary legislation every time we host a major event and welcome people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights, under the provisions on unauthorised association. Crucially, the Bill does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by strikes.
Hon. Members will know the damage that such actions cause. Last September’s tube strikes caused near-total shutdown, costing Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fare revenue alone, and imposing an estimated £230 million of direct cost to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. Those impacts included workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that affecting the United Kingdom’s ability to host a major sporting event such as the world cup or the Olympics.
Even the Foreign Secretary, the then leader of the Labour party, said ahead of the 2012 Olympic games,
“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted.”
I am sure hon. Members will also remember the 2022 Commonwealth games, when ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. More recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth games in an effort to force a new pay deal. As the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operational and commercial viability of those games. Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks. They are a recurring and increasing phenomenon under Governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure it cannot be left to chance.
The punishments for breaches would be comparable to those the Government have drafted for the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that any conduct that threatens the integrity of major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised, and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, that threatens to close down events entirely any less seriously.
There are, of course, limits to the provisions I seek to include in the Bill. The ability to prevent strikes would apply only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework in relation to a particular sporting event, on which I have also tabled amendment 9. It would apply to transport workers nationally, since they are mobile by definition, but also to local authority workers only in the area where an event is being held. It would apply only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework. New schedule 2 would provide for a full enforcement code, notices of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of that mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.
The Committee will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just to the economy but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and grassroots sports. We cannot let that be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the Government to ransom over pay deals. When we have secured a major event, we owe it to the athletes, the spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 7 and 8, new clause 5 and new schedule 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, would prevent transport and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action linked to sporting events during specified periods. That includes creating offences relating to participation in and organisation or inducement of such action.
As the Committee will be aware, the Government repealed the minimum service legislation and a number of other restrictions on the right to strike via the Employment Rights Act 2025. The amendments would reintroduce a significant restriction on the ability of workers to take industrial action, and the Government have been clear that we will not support such restrictions. The Government do not consider it right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation and must not seek to carve out core components of employment rights.
We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations that is fit for the 21st century, and that includes a new industrial relations framework that establishes expectations for how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. On the basis of the points I have made, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 7.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”.
New schedule 3—The Single Sex Protection Provisions—
“Protections for participants in major sporting events
1(1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event will—
(a) provide that all competitors in the sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;
(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;
(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
Protections for spectators of major sporting events
2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event will—
(a) provide that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.
Interpretation
3 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to ‘single sex’ means sex as defined in the Equalities Act 2010.”.
This new Schedule, with Amendments 13 and 14, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events.
Clause stand part.
Mr French
Clause 1 will introduce a common legislative framework for major sporting events held in the UK. The framework covers five aspects of sporting events: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport. The legislative provisions for those five aspects are set out in schedules 1 to 5.
Amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, all of which are in my name, would add single sex protection provisions to the framework. They propose establishing a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities for major sporting events taking place under the framework established by the Bill. They also set out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex.
The noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to argue that these amendments were not necessary when they were tabled in the other place because
“events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.]
Unfortunately, although the law has been clear for some time, there are still organisations, including those the Minister has responsibility for—thankfully only a few—that are not complying with the law as clarified by the April 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers.
We have all heard of the inspirational case of the eight female nurses who successfully appealed against the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust’s policy and management’s dismissal of their concerns. An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurses’ dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment, and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination. That was almost a year after the law had been clarified.
These cases continue to arise despite the law being clear. If the noble Minister was right, they no longer would and the law would be sufficient. Even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision in the For Women Scotland case was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect women’s and girls’ spaces, particularly in a sporting context.
Across the world, sports governing bodies are coming around to biological reality. In March 2026, the International Olympic Committee banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 summer Olympics and future Olympic games. The IOC president stated that the new policy was “based on science” and made because
“it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.”
However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by the Government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Minister for Women told the EHRC that it must “tone down” its guidance, which is designed to protect women and girls and single-sex spaces.
That is why my amendments are essential. Any organiser of a major sporting event would have it before them as part of the framework that all competitors in a sporting event must compete against those of the same biological sex, where designated, in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event must be able to use single-sex accommodation, single-sex changing and washing facilities and single-sex toilets based on their biological sex.
The amendments would also mean that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event, could use single-sex toilets based on their biological sex and single-sex changing and washing facilities, where necessary, based on their biological sex. That is necessary because neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are able to commit to protecting single-sex spaces for women and girls. We know that girls already spend an average of 90 minutes less per week than boys playing sport and that the drop-out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys.
Respondents to the 2024 BBC elite British sportswomen study who were not comfortable with transgender participation in elite women’s categories outnumbered those who were by 10 to one. Comments included:
“It makes it too much of an unfair playing field, regardless of what sport you are competing in”
and
“Putting them in women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild women back up again.”
That is why the Conservative party is fully committed to ensuring that women and girls have safe single-sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age and throughout their lives. We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes. In doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them. Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment. My amendments would make sure that that would be the case.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 1 introduces the framework provisions in the Bill, designed to help the UK deliver its commitments to event owners and ensure that we remain a credible and competitive host of major sporting events. Delivering such commitments usually requires time-consuming, event-specific legislation. This Bill changes the game: any of the framework provisions can be applied, as needed, to any qualifying sporting event through secondary legislation.
The framework provisions will help to protect commercial rights and the experience of fans by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets and by preventing unauthorised advertising and trading around sporting events. The provisions will ensure that we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK’s position as an attractive host of the biggest events. Finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure that fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably. Taken together, those provisions signal the UK’s commitment to hosting excellence, and ensure that we are ready to welcome the world.
I now turn to amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, tabled by the shadow Minister. I understand that his intent is to ensure that the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied only when major sporting events ensure single-sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex, and the provision of facilities and sport are included in that.
Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets, and accommodation to biological sex, where proportionate, to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear: to ensure fairness or safety in sport competitions designated as women’s competitions, participation is determined based on biological sex. That would apply to all events in scope of the Bill as they are all competitive sporting events. An explicit statutory duty in the Bill is therefore unnecessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert “(but see subsection (3A))”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 21, 23 to 31, 42 and 43.
Government new clause 14—Fees.
Stephanie Peacock
As the Bill passed through the other place, we heard a strong case from peers and sporting bodies alike that a small number of our world-class recurrent events could face the same delivery, commercial protection and hosting challenges as itinerant events in the future. The Government have heard and agree with the intent.
Domestic sporting events, as referred to in the Bill, contribute significant economic and social value to the UK. However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope, with “domestic appeal” potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar. Without safeguards to ensure that the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks giving eligibility for protections to an extremely large pool of events and having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities.
Even restricting the scope of “domestic sporting event” rightly requires clarity on how the Government will extend the provisions to events that currently operate independently of our operational support. That is why we have brought forward this package of Government amendments. Amendment 28 removes the addition of “national” interest; as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There are already two framework conditions. The first is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The second is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK—or the event must be of “strategic value”, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria.
Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events, referred to in the Bill as “domestic sporting events”. Those are defined under Government amendment 25 as
“a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.
The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority requesting that the framework be applied. The event organiser must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to its event. The Secretary of State or devolved Governments may then consider such events on a case-by-case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events. That is a necessary distinction for a cohort of domestic sporting events that currently are both numerous and run independently of Government.
The independent events are not routinely subject to Government evaluation that could otherwise inform a decision to extend the provisions. The amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. That allows the Government to ensure that they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Minister well knows that Trent Bridge is in my constituency of Rushcliffe. What category would an event such as the Ashes fall into? It is an internationally significant event, but it is a roaming event that goes to different locations. Would it fall into a different category?
Stephanie Peacock
Any sporting event can apply and must meet the evidence-based threshold. On Royal Assent, we will publish the application process. I am happy to follow up in writing with my hon. Friend, but the event will be able to apply and make a case. That will then be on a case-by-case basis.
A further safeguard to ensure the proportionality of applying these measures is set out in amendment 31, which adds a sunset provision that ensures that regulations applying provisions to recurrent events may not run past five years. That will ensure that no event should benefit from these provisions in perpetuity without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. That does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but it does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in group 12, I will set out additional safeguards that the Government consider necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate.
I turn to Government amendment 24. After extensive exploration, the Government believe that the Bill’s transport provisions do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events. They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time-limited events, with powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of the provision would not materially add to the Government’s support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we will not pursue legislation that we believe is not materially useful.
Finally, I turn to new clause 14. As the Committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure that the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable. In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry out enforcement of the advertising and trading offences under the Bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point; that is why new clause 14 introduces a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers the additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events.
Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that it has incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events. That includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the costs of administering an authorisation process and engagement with local businesses.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I intend to press to a vote all the amendments relating to the additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events set out by Government amendment 30. I also want to speak to Government amendment 28 and press that to a vote.
In the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the Bill’s scope to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. That amendment received great support from the industry, with bodies including the England and Wales Cricket Board, Formula 1, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football Association, the London Marathon and the Rugby Football Union signing our letter to push for this amendment, which was voted through.
I was pleased that the Minister accepted that amended scope on Second Reading. However, I am concerned that these Government amendments will not deliver it. I understand the Government’s intention—not every premier league match should receive the specific benefit of this Bill—but Government amendment 28 will remove “national interest” from the sporting events framework. That will significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters in particular for women’s sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention. I am seeking clarification: can the Minister confirm that major national events such as Wimbledon will remain covered by the provisions in this Bill?
Mr French
This group of Government amendments is part of the changes the Government seek to make in relation to the application of the sporting events framework. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these, and her thinking behind them, last week. As we have heard, they include changes that define a domestic sporting event; mean that the sporting events framework could be applied to a sporting event only if it is likely to be of significant international interest; provide for an additional condition that must be met in the case of domestic sporting events; provide that regulations under clause 2 that relate to a domestic sporting event cease to have effect after a certain period of time; and mean that transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.
The Minister has assured me that there is broad support among stakeholders for these tweaks that the Government are seeking to make. But they also include new clause 14, which
“would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”
The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance wrote in last night—I suspect to a number of MPs on this Committee—because it is concerned that that sets a precedent where the victim of an offence will be required to pay for the enforcement of that offence.
The Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world for major events around the Home Office’s ongoing engagement with the police—for example, about how costs are split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. We are concerned about that. I am particularly keen to hear what reassurance the Minister can provide the Committee that that precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major and domestic events. More broadly, I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place. However, I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset; I am keen to hear the Minister’s response and what assurance she can provide the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Frome and East Somerset, and for the time they spent last week discussing the matter. As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, the Government have listened, and we acknowledged that we needed to go further. As I set out, certain conditions will need to be met in order for recurrent events to receive the protections: they must be wholly or partly held in the United Kingdom, be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson referred to Wimbledon, an event that attracts clear international interest. I have been watching the tournament for 30 years, and there are players from all across the world. I hope the Minister can reassure us that that is precisely the type of event that will be protected under the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend has done my job for me: I was just coming on to that point. The event must also be of strategic value to help us secure other events, but, to answer his specific question: yes, we would anticipate Wimbledon, the Open, Silverstone and the London marathon being the sorts of events that would be protected. I discussed this matter with the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset last week, and as I outlined in answer to an earlier intervention, a wide range of events can apply, but they must meet an evidential threshold to receive those powers. It is worth noting that they may not want all of the powers in the Bill; they may simply want some of them.
In answer to the shadow Minister’s point about new clause 14, I have outlined the reasons why we included it. There is a balance to be struck, but we do not believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers.
James Naish
I have a small point that I do not think is covered in this clause, but maybe the Minister can confirm that. For people in my constituency, which has three international venues close by, parking and the cost of parking enforcement are very important. Will the Minister consider support for local authorities that take on that extra burden when major events come to town?
Stephanie Peacock
For those itinerant events, there are transport provisions in the Bill, but this group of amendments relates to recurrent events. We have exempted them from the transport provisions, having been in consultation and conversation with both the event organisers and local authorities, because they already have transport plans in place. I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level can cause challenges, particularly with transport—I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley—so perhaps I can pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Transport Minister. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ points.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendments made: 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after “section” insert
“in relation to a sporting event”.
This amendment contains a drafting refinement.
Amendment 23: in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from “if” to end of line 13 and insert
“—
(a) the first and second conditions in section 3 are met, and
(b) in the case of a domestic sporting event, the third condition in that section is also met.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 24: in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not apply the transport provisions to a domestic sporting event.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than 50 days.”
This amendment sets the maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment would ensure that all regulations applying the sporting events framework are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
Mr French
I will start with what clause 2 seeks to achieve, which is the application of the framework to major sporting events. The clause establishes how the sporting events framework can be applied to individual sporting events. It will give the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved Governments powers to apply ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions, while the Secretary of State can also apply unauthorised association and transport provisions. However, those powers can be used only where the event meets the conditions set out in clause 3. Regulations made under the clause can also cover connected events, such as cultural events, that are held in connection with the main sporting event; the clause also establishes the scrutiny procedures for such regulations.
Amendment 9, which is in my name, would set a
“maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.”
As it stands, there is no limit to the time for which regulations made under the Bill can be in effect. We think that that is a clear omission. As designed, the framework applies to specific and time-limited events. It therefore seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate.
Amendment 9 proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit for the powers. As hon. Members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic games spanned 45 days, the UEFA European championship runs for approximately one month and the FIFA world cup takes about 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. Our amendment’s balanced approach gives organisers a generous margin within which to operate, while also giving Parliament and the public reassurance that those powers will not accidentally remain in place beyond the event’s needs.
I am sure that the Minister will echo the comments of the Minister in the other place and say that they understand the need for flexibility. However, further to the question that my noble Friend Lord Parkinson asked the Lords Minister, I would be interested to know what event the Minister has in mind that may require a longer period, particularly as she has now tabled Government amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the Committee why one event would need a time limit but the others would not, given that they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework? If flexibility is key, I hope that my amendment will help to provide the solution. I hope the Committee agrees that it would help to dovetail the intentions of the Bill and the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished.
Amendment 10, which is in my name, would ensure that all regulations applying to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses. As drafted, the Bill stipulates that the affirmative procedure applies only to the first set of regulations establishing the framework for a particular event; any subsequent regulations that amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure.
My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause 2 are subject to affirmative procedures. The principle is straightforward; we are talking about a framework that could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events.
As my noble Friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These matters warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. I hope the Committee agrees that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under the clause, not just the first set.
I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said:
“I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 490.]
That was such an eloquent comment—I should be clear that it was his, not mine.
In its delegated powers memorandum, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport argues that the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event.
However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to arrangements already in place.
It is difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes, to proceed without the same level of scrutiny, or indeed any scrutiny. If the Government’s argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest to the Minister and the Committee that that is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far-reaching consequences.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 2 provides the mechanism by which the framework established in the Bill can be applied to individual events. Major sporting events differ in scale, in geography and in the specific operational challenges they present. It is therefore right that the Bill does not seek to impose a one-size-fits-all regime in every case.
Clause 2 will enable the framework to be tailored to the circumstances of a particular event, applying only those provisions that are necessary and proportionate. There is no appetite to put measures in place that are not needed. This is a practical approach, but it is also responsible; the power is not open-ended. Regulations may be made only where the conditions in the framework are met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The clause also provides important clarity about the way the Bill operates across the UK, because it has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right that we look to ensure that every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation. Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory.
Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate that a UK-wide approach is most desirable; I will say more about that when we come to clause 5. Only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied by the Secretary of State; the Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved Governments were content that they already had adequate provision. Transport co-ordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved Governments and delivery partners, ensuring that arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation while supporting coherent UK-wide delivery of major events.
In short, clause 2 will provide the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It will also ensure that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied. Having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each use of the powers in the clause for an event must be subject to debate.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and particularly her reference to the amendments tabled since the debate in the other place. We will take the Government’s words in good faith and will not seek a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 25, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“‘domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
The amendment defines “domestic sporting event”.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Framework conditions
Amendment made: 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section 2(3).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
“(3A) The third condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—
(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.
Amendment 17, in clause 25, page 19, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert—
“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—
(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.
Clause stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
Anna Sabine
Any sporting event falling under this Bill, and especially any sporting event receiving financial support from the Government, should be free to air. Sport is a huge part of our culture. We will get to the topic of tickets later in this debate, but the reality is that it is expensive to see sport live. We can all agree that being able to watch England play football at the world cup should be free for everyone to watch on TV. Our amendments would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under the Bill and that, especially when Government funding is going towards that event, it is free to do so.
Public service broadcasters have pioneered free-to-air coverage and have demonstrated that it has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls, who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV. Research by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free-to-air has a direct impact on how many people are watching women’s sports. These amendments would ensure not only that every fan can watch their team play, but that emerging sports funded by the Government or provided for through the Bill are accessible for all to see.
Mr French
Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and must meet either the significance or the strategic priorities.
To meet the significance priorities, the sporting event must be likely to be of significant international or national interest, the sporting event organiser must have asked for the framework to be applied and the event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK. This clause sets out the criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. They include the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected outside the UK.
To meet the strategic priority, it must be proven that hosting the sporting event will improve the UK’s chance of securing hosting rights for events that meet the significance priorities. I think all Members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events. That is something that goes across parties and will often involve successive Governments, with one Government starting the bid and then another Government hosting the event.
Clause 4, which is entitled “Restrictions on application of framework”, sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities. Before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility of a devolved authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority’s consent. At the same time, the clause sets out that devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where ticket touting provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly within the relevant devolved territory.
Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require all sporting events hosted under the Bill to be made free to air. Understandably, that has raised a number of concerns among sporting bodies. Before I get into the details of why the amendments would not just upset the apple cart but risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I will start by disagreeing with the terminology “free to air”. As my noble Friend Lord Hayward pointed out in Committee in the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence. These events are therefore never free to air.
Secondly, a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieve the expansion of sports coverage—I do agree with the intentions of the proposal—than a blanket ban, which would be likely to have unintended consequences because of the complexities of global broadcast deals. At a glance, it may well look like an attractive proposition, designed to appeal to Liberal Democrats across the home counties. However, although we all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy. These amendments would risk doing real damage to the very sports that they are meant to support.
Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation of—we hope—world-beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League’s current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT Sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over four years, and the English Football League’s deal with Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. Those agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it.
The question for the Liberal Democrats is simple: if their amendments put that income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I appreciate that their amendments start with major events hosted under the framework for which the Bill provides, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA cannot sell their broadcast rights at market value, the effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens? I can answer for them: it will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made free to air. That is popular—I understand it—but someone still has to pay for the rights to broadcast them. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport; they will be felt throughout sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment.
The Liberal Democrats should recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK sports invested a record £213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary code of conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested £1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment in sport, not introducing blanket restrictions that risk undermining it at any level. That is particularly important when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this Government. The Liberal Democrats should not seek to add further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport through amendments that could jeopardise the broadcasting revenue upon which it depends.
Let me be clear once again: I want more people watching major sporting events—I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes, families to enjoy the biggest occasions and British sport to reach the widest possible audience—but we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports.
The answer is to review the listed events regime, make the most of the commercial broadcasting agreements, encourage investment in grassroots sports and ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which it would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular, without adequately addressing the clear consequences.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling amendments 15 to 17 and for her thoughtful points. The amendments seek to add a further condition that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments must consider to be met in order for the provisions of the Bill to be applied to a sporting event or an event to rely on the funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of the event must be made available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom-licensed platform accessible without subscription.
The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept them. Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of Government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events; indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in detail some of the relevant figures. The amendments would place tighter controls on their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the Bill provides for.
The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting their exclusive broadcasting without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders of specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.
Clause 3 sets out the conditions that a sporting event must meet before the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied to it. We have had a thorough debate on this matter already, and I hope the Committee agrees that it is not necessary to revisit those points.
Clause 4 ensures that the Bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing, advertising and trading to a sporting event in an area of devolved competence without the devolved authority’s consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may exercise these powers only where the matter falls within their legislative competence. Where ticketing provisions are applied, the event in question must take place at least partly within the territory of the devolved authority making the regulations. The clause is an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world-class events throughout the UK.
Anna Sabine
I do not represent a home county, and I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 5 deals with the important issue of ticketing. It is integral to the framework provisions in the Bill, and in particular to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners when we seek and secure events hosted in the UK. The ticketing provisions in the Bill are time-limited and designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of an event owner or organiser.
Clause 5 provides that any regulations applying the Bill’s ticketing measures must specify the period for which those measures apply. That will ensure that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important, given that these provisions fall within devolved competence.
We expect the effectiveness of the provisions to be significantly reduced if there is inconsistency in their application, or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. That is precisely why clause 5 is so important. It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis where the consent of the devolved Governments has been secured. The Government’s strong preference is, of course, for a coherent UK-wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event organisers, stronger protection for fans and a more effective basis for enforcement.
Clause 6 is a practical, functional element of the Bill. Regulations applying the ticketing provisions to an event will need to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation for ticketing activity, such as the sale and resale of tickets. Only a person who is suitable can be designated to grant authorisations. In effect, that means someone who has the primary right to sell tickets to an event, which we expect would include only an event owner or organiser. The event owner or organiser could then determine who is authorised, based on commercial arrangements.
As unauthorised public resale will be a criminal offence, the Government expect that accessible authorised channels will be made available for the resale of tickets where people can no longer attend an event. Conditions may be imposed on an event owner or organiser who can authorise ticket sales—for example, to require them to maintain a register of platforms that can legally sell tickets.
Before I conclude, it is worth touching on our manifesto commitment to ban ticket touting, with a nod to new clauses 10 and 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, which we will consider later. We understand and share the objectives that underpin those new clauses, which is why the Secretary of State affirmed on Second Reading our intention to treat the Bill as a priority and ensure that we get it on the statute book.
We will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under the Bill, and there will be strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. That will ensure that, regardless of the event, fans are treated fairly and can have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market. Fans should take further confidence from the fact that UEFA has already confirmed that there will be no dynamic pricing for Euro 2028, and that more than 40% of tickets will be available in the most affordable categories.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Exceptions to the ticket touting offence
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Exception for charitable auctions—
“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—
(a) by a charity, or
(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘charity’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”
Clause stand part.
Mr French
As we are debating ticket touting regulations, particularly in relation to football, it is probably right that I disclose that I attended the FIFA world cup in a private capacity and bought my own ticket, just in case we get a mention of FIFA.
Clause 7 allows regulations to specify activities that are exempt from the ticket touting offence. In doing so, it gives the appropriate national authority the flexibility to accommodate legitimate activities that should not be prohibited. My amendment 11 and new clause 6 are relatively small changes that would enable the charitable resale of tickets.
I am sure the Committee will agree that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises that fact, but she has asserted that
“it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket exception as this could undermine the Bill’s objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 476.]
I am not sure which objective my amendments would undermine. One of the premises under which the Government have brought forward the Bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and a social good for the United Kingdom. Charities are key vessels for delivering social good, so why are the Government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities, and why are they prioritising FIFA’s ability to resell tickets at a hugely inflated price, instead of the money going towards a good cause or charity?
The problem is that there is confusion among the Government. In one part of the Bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and that ticket resale sites such as Viagogo and StubHub should not be able to make significant profits from the services that they offer—in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, the Bill as it stands eliminates the ability of charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for a good cause. Instead, the noble Minister has said that
“charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 552.]
How impractical! Do the Government really expect a local charity or a good cause to be able to navigate an as-yet-undefined application process, and to compete against the likes of UEFA or FIFA and their international infrastructure, simply to auction a ticket to a sporting event in aid of a chosen charitable cause? It is ridiculous to expect the vast majority of charities, which are often small, to be able to do that. In practice, it creates a ban on auctions taking place, which will be to the detriment of charities. That is why I have tabled amendment 11 and new clause 6.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 7 deals with the important issue of exceptions to the ticket touting offence, which ensures that proportionality, where required and appropriate, can be applied to the way the offence operates. It is important to clarify that the offence does not prohibit the transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. Clause 7 enables regulations applying the ticketing provision to specify exceptions to the offence, which may include activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, including the auctioning of tickets to raise money. This ensures that the Secretary of State or a devolved authority can consider what is proportionate and right for each event.
Although I note that no exception was provided in the legislation for London 2012 or Birmingham 2022, I have asked my officials to discuss this issue further with UEFA before we bring forward regulations next year. I am confident that we can agree on an approach that supports the work of our fantastic charity sector, particularly local charities in our host cities, which speaks to the points made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. His amendment 11 and new clause 6 would put on the face of the Bill an exception to the ticket touting offence where a ticket is sold by auction and the proceeds go to charity.
I fully recognise the spirit of the hon. Member’s amendments, and we listened carefully to the concerns raised in the other place about the potential impact of the legislative framework on charitable fundraising. That is precisely why the Government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through regulations. In relation to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, we believe that what is needed is not a wholesale exception but a proportionate approach. The amendment tabled by the Government in the other place sends a clear signal of intent. Where it is appropriate to do so, exceptions for charities can and will be made in regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 11 and new clause 6.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 24, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (‘A’) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (‘B’) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”.
This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 56.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.
(2B) A ‘secondary ticketing condition’ is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”.
Government amendments 57 to 60.
Schedule 1.
Mr French
Amendment 12 mirrors one of the defences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020, which ensures that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability. That means that it would not be an offence under the Bill for a person to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from somebody else, unless that first person already knows, or would be reasonably expected to know, that the second person is in fact touting a ticket to an event. This is a rather small and simple change that would improve the protections for those who would, under the current drafting, be inadvertently guilty of committing a crime.
It is unreasonable to expect everybody in the first person’s shoes to know the entirety of the story of the second person and how they came about the ticket. If somebody is knowingly advertising a touted ticket, of course they should face the full and proper penalties provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree that the amendment would make a small and simple change to avoid trapping unsuspecting persons in a legal mess because they have been misled or did not know about somebody else’s actions.
Amendment 3 would add a requirement for any person granted a ticketing authorisation under the relevant paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person. The principle behind the amendment is straightforward: people who purchase tickets to major sporting events should not be left out of pocket if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to attend.
Life happens. As MPs, we all know that. People fall ill, family commitments change and work or travel arrangements can fall through. It cannot be right that a fan who has paid good money for a ticket should have no reasonable means of transferring it to somebody else. We of course recognise the importance of protecting fans from ticket touting, excessive resale prices and fraudulent activity. Those are legitimate concerns. However, there is a clear distinction between organised touting for profit and an ordinary supporter who simply wishes to recover the cost of a ticket they can no longer use.
As Lord Fuller said in the other place, not only does the Bill as drafted prevent the honest sale or transfer of a ticket, but it fines someone £50,000 “for trying it”. In my view, that is unacceptable. Under this Government, a person might get less of a punishment for burglary. A properly managed transfer or resale mechanism can help to protect consumers, give organisers greater oversight of who holds a ticket, and reduce the incentive for fans to turn to unofficial platforms or the black market, where the risk of fraud may be considerably greater.
This part of the Bill is seemingly stuck in the past as it fails to consider the ways fans can be protected from scammers with modern techniques, including proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. It is my understanding that the resale sector is calling for that, but the ticket sales and distribution companies are refusing to engage with it. Will the Minister speak to her ministerial colleagues in her Department and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and update me on discussions that the Government are having with the sector about introducing interoperability between ticket distribution companies and resale sites? That would hopefully allow resale companies to prevent ghost ticketing, and would facilitate a regular exchange between consenting adults—no more fake tickets sold and no more disappointed fans. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that her colleagues do that, and will she write to me after the Committee? If the Government’s aim is to protect consumers—I am sure it is—fans who no longer need their ticket must be able either to resell it or transfer it with little difficulty. The Bill currently allows fans only to sell their tickets back to the organisers, and there is then no cap on the resale value.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak first to schedule 1, and then I will speak to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Schedule 1 sets out the scope and detail of the ticketing offence and the enforcement measures available. Principally, it sets out the criminal ticketing offence, which will apply only in the part or parts of the United Kingdom that have been specified in the regulations. As this is a devolved area of competence, the Secretary of State can apply the ticketing offence to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only with their consent.
An event ticket is defined as anything that is or claims to be a ticket to the sporting event in question, including any opening or closing ceremonies or connected events, such as official cultural programmes, where those events are specified in regulations.
James Naish
During the 2012 games, there were a considerable number of test events, and also dress rehearsals for the opening and closing ceremonies and warm-up events. Would they be covered by the schedule?
Stephanie Peacock
We will set it out in regulations. It depends on what event it is. I anticipate that those examples would be included, but it will be for this House to decide when it debates the regulations for each event.
It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase in certain circumstances. That includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace, whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away of such a ticket to someone who pays, or agrees to pay, for other goods or services. That includes event tickets included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods or services.
The penalty levels are designed to ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine; in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than £50,000; and in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding £20,000. On conviction on indictment in Scotland, they would be subject to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect differences in the judicial systems and legal frameworks across the UK. As an alternative to prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts.
As ticketing offences are not confined to the UK, we must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside our borders. That is why a UK national, an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK, or a part of the UK where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out ticketing activity in the course of business outside of the UK, or in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided that the UK connection condition is met. That is crucial to ensure we can take action against activity that affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carry out business in the UK, or if they direct their activity to people in the UK. Enforcement authorities will have the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £20,000 as an alternative to prosecution. While the level of penalties is at the discretion of the enforcement authority, they can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out: there will be the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal, and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures.
Government amendment 56 addresses a drafting omission by providing that the Bill’s reference to the sale of an event ticket also includes reference to giving an event ticket as a prize, which is the long-standing intention of the provision and ensures that we can satisfy our hosting commitments. It prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so—for example, they could be an official sponsor. Ultimately, the amendment will ensure that large businesses cannot exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution.
Government amendments 57 to 60 ensure that, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court. This provides flexibility to accommodate different arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and it makes it clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under an order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act 2025, and reduces the potential administrative burden for the enforcement authorities associated with the recovery of unpaid financial penalties.
Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence for the ticket touting offence that mirrors the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. However, the position in this Bill is different, and that matters. Under the 2020 Act, someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided that they were not acting as a business. As a result, to avoid committing an offence, someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of business. A person could avoid liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit.
That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew, or ought to have known, that it was being sold commercially or for profit. That introduced uncertainty, complexity and a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this Bill, the rule is clear. It applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser.
Amendment 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform, so the Bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome that the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers at the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend can resell tickets legally and safely.
I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform. Regardless, the Bill ensures that fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value, or advertise them through private social media channels. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 56 to 60 to the Committee, and I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 3 and 12 to a vote.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. As I say, we were hoping to stop a situation in which an innocent member of the public shares a Facebook post that says, “X person has a ticket for sale for this game. Are you interested?”, but is then accidentally caught up in the Bill’s provisions and faces significant penalties. I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but the Opposition still have concerns, so I will look to press amendment 12 to a vote.
Likewise, on amendment 3, we want fans to have the opportunity to resell tickets if they are no longer attending. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the amendment, and I appreciate them, but our overall concern is that we will end up with a structure where the event organiser effectively has a monopoly that removes fans’ ability to transfer tickets easily. We are slightly concerned about what that could mean for ticket resale prices, if there is not a cap on the likes of FIFA being able to push up prices on fans, so we will also push amendment 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Government amendments 61 and 62.
Schedule 2.
Government amendments 45 and 48.
Stephanie Peacock
Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. Clause 8 protects these commercial rights by preventing advertisers from ambushing an event to compete for brand exposure against official sponsors. Advertising activity as defined in schedule 2 is:
“anything done wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting a product, service or business specifically to members of the public…who are in a restricted advertising zone, or…who are watching or listening to a broadcast of the sporting event.”
The clause ensures that advertising restrictions are applied flexibly and proportionately, reflecting operational requirements. Regulations must make clear the places and periods to which the restrictions apply. A place may be specified only if it is being used for the sporting event itself, is used in connection with it—such as a fanzone or transport hub—and is in the vicinity of those locations, such as key spectator routes.
Proportionality is the underlying principle here, as it is across the Bill. The clause limits restrictions to no earlier than 10 days before or later than five days after the event, restricting advertising zones and covering activity in the airspace above it and on waterways close enough to the zone to be seen from within it. This ensures that the provisions are effective in practice. The Government will work closely with local authorities, event organisers, businesses and community groups to minimise the impact on existing businesses and local communities where these regulations are applied.
Clause 9 deals with advertising authorisations. The clause provides a clear mechanism to allow advertisers—for example, a media owner operating in a restricted advertising zone—to apply for permission to continue advertising activity while the restrictions are in place. We have made it clear in the Bill that the power to grant authorisations should be exercised only by a suitable body. In practice, that means a public body or a time-limited private body, such as a local organising committee, set up to deliver a major sporting event.
Clause 10 enables exceptions to the advertising offence to be set out in event-specific regulations. Among other things, exceptions may apply to activities carried out for a specified purpose, which could mean selling or distributing a newspaper, or by a specified description of a person such as an event organiser or sponsor, or in connection with existing advertising law. We will come back to that point later in Committee.
James Naish
The Minister will be acutely aware that for a lot of athletes, sponsorship is a key form of income. How will that type of sponsorship be covered in the regulations?
Stephanie Peacock
Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that point, or perhaps come back to him later in Committee.
The ambition of the Bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for sporting events held in the UK, but as I said on Second Reading, I am equally clear that we must protect small businesses. Government amendments 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone. That means that authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise. That is an important safeguard.
We are acutely aware of the practical effect that these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small business or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than 10 staff, and a small business as one with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.
Mr French
Clause 8 requires regulations to identify the restricted advertising zones and the periods during which advertising restrictions apply. These zones must relate to event venues, locations used in connection with the event or their surrounding areas. For events involving devolved authorities, these zones must remain in their jurisdictions. The clause sets out that restrictions may begin no earlier than 10 days before the event and must end no later than five days afterwards. It allows regulations to address fixed penalty notices for offences and how advertising restrictions apply to locations such as airspace and waterways.
Clause 9 allows regulations to designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designated person may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable representative appointed by the authority. That enables legitimate advertising by sponsors and other approved parties within restricted advertising zones. We all understand why that is so important when bidding for major international tournaments. It is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have for those international competitions. Designations of a representative may include conditions such as maintaining a register of granted advertising authorisations and making that available to the public, or reporting back to the appropriate national authority.
Clause 10 allows regulations to exempt specified types of advertising from the advertising offence. Exceptions may relate to the purpose, location, person or method of advertising, and may cover cases of charity promotion, event-authorised advertising and certain electronic communications. Existing lawful advertising arrangements may also be taken into account. Before creating exceptions, the relevant authority must consult the local authorities in which the restricted advertising zone would be and any other appropriate persons, which is appropriate given the impact that major events have on local communities.
I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, because I had also written it down. What does the Minister think the relationship will be like for existing sponsorships, particularly of athletes? In football and athletics, it is often shoe sponsorship—Nike, Adidas and so on. How will those existing sponsorships or advertising deals, which are a key source of revenue for all athletes, be impacted by the regulations? I am happy to have the answer in writing if the Minister does not have it with her.
The group of Government amendments to clauses 8 to 10 and schedule 2 relating to advertising at sporting events requires the designated authorising person to take into account existing advertising licences when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. The amendments also require the designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. Government amendments 45 and 48 define a small business as having between 10 and 50 members of staff, and a micro business as having fewer than 10. The amendments seem entirely sensible to us. I appreciate that there were concerns shared from across the House, but the Minister and I had a conversation last week in private and the amendments appear sensible.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point about unauthorised associations and restrictions. An unauthorised association will apply only to commercial activity likely to suggest to the public that a person has an official connection with an event, such as an official sponsor rather than a competing team or athlete. It is for the event owners to determine and enforce their own policies and procedures regarding athlete sponsorship and associated promotional activity. I am happy to write to the Committee to clarify that point if that would be helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Advertising provisions
Amendments made: 61, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
“(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person—
(a) must have regard to any existing advertising licences, and
(b) may have regard to—
(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and
(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”
This amendment would require existing advertising licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation.
Amendment 62, in schedule 2, page 31, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in respect of a person or description of person, a designated authorising person must also have regard to whether the person is, or the description of person includes, a small or micro business.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would require a designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business in determining whether or not to grant an advertising authorisation.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11
Trading regulations
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, at end insert—
“(7A) Subsection (7B) applies where, in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, persons are prevented from carrying out a trading activity that they would otherwise be entitled to carry out in accordance with a licence granted by a local authority were it not for the trading provisions being applied by the regulations.
(7B) Where this subsection applies, the regulations must include provision requiring specified public authorities to take whatever steps the public authority considers reasonable for mitigating any adverse impacts caused to such persons as a result of their being prevented from carrying out the trading activity.”
This amendment would mean that, where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, then in certain circumstances the regulations must require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts that applying the trading provisions to the event will have on licensed traders.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 33, 40, 46 and 47.
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Government amendments 63 to 65.
Schedule 3.
Stephanie Peacock
This group deals with restrictions to trading, which the Bill defines as selling, offering or exposing an item for sale, providing or offering to provide a service for gain or reward, providing public entertainment for gain or reward, and appealing for money or other property. Such restrictions are required to protect commercial rights when enabling the safe and easy flow of spectators in and around event locations.
Clause 11 mirrors much of clause 8, which deals with advertising restrictions in respect of trading. It requires regulations applying trading restrictions to specify where they apply and for how long. A place may be included in a restricted trading zone only if it is used for, or in connection with, a sporting event or if it is in the vicinity of such a place. Again, that limits restrictions only to locations where they are needed. The clause sets the same limits on timing as those that apply to advertising—no earlier than 10 days before an event and no later than five days after. In most cases, it is more likely that restrictions apply from the day before a venue is in use to the day the activity concludes.
The clause also enables regulations to clarify when a person is to be treated as doing something in, or being in part of, a restricted trading zone. That means, for example, that the trading offence may be applied to waterways or airspace, helping to ensure that event-specific requirements and local circumstances can be properly taken into account. Regulations may provide further detail about giving fixed penalty notices, such as their form, payment and fine levels, while also allowing that approach to be disapplied where appropriate. Importantly, trading restrictions must be underpinned by proportionality, and there are distinctions between how that is applied in relation to one-off events and recurrent events, as I will discuss. However, in common, they ensure that trading provisions meet the needs of sporting events while minimising disruption to those living and working nearby.
Government amendments 32, 40, 46 and 47 do just that. For itinerant events, where traders with an existing licence granted by a local authority are unable to trade as usual, due to the application of the regulations, those regulations must confer a duty on specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on such traders. In practice, that would establish a clear expectation that options are proactively explored, such as alternative trading arrangements, for those unable to continue trading inside a restricted zone.
Government amendment 33 introduces further safeguards. It makes clear that a condition imposed on a designated authorising person in regulations, such as a local authority or event organiser, may include a requirement to put in place a review process. That would allow an applicant dissatisfied with a trading authorisation decision to request a review.
Clause 12 provides the mechanism to authorise trading activity that would otherwise be an offence under the Bill. Regulations may designate one or more suitable persons, such as a local authority or non-departmental public body, to grant authorisations for trading activity. However, only a public body would be suitable for that role. Those with an existing trading licence may be able to apply for authorisation. For itinerant events, it is right that the authorising person must continue to take into account whether somebody has an existing trading licence when determining an application to trade. The important matter of exceptions to the trading offence is dealt with in schedule 3, covering premises adjoining a highway and included on the face of the Bill to ensure that deliveries and services provided to local residents and businesses are unaffected by the restrictions.
Clause 13 enables further exceptions to the trading offence to be set out in regulations and tailored to the needs of each event. There is precedent for that. The Bill sets out that such exceptions may include providing a public service, facility or amenity, such as a public toilet or ATM; providing a transport service, such as taxis and private hire services; and providing services relating to motor vehicles, such as a petrol station.
The Bill also provides for the necessary safeguards to ensure that exceptions take account of local circumstances and event-specific needs. The Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted trading zone, along with any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, such as event organisers and local businesses.
Government amendments 63 to 65 ensure that there will be no disproportionate impact from trading restrictions arising from recurrent events. It is right that we take a different approach here and go as far as possible to protect existing traders who operate in their vicinity. For recurrent events, the Bill will now provide a blanket exception to the trading offence for traders in a restricted zone who already hold a licence granted by the local authority. That is an important protection. It means that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as a long-standing independent food seller, will have greater certainty and a fair opportunity to continue to benefit from the economic activity that domestic sporting events can bring.
As there is no such exception for itinerant events, Government amendment 64 makes it clear that, for those events, existing trading licences must be taken into account when applications for authorisation are determined. That is an important safeguard designed to help ensure that existing traders, especially those licensed by the local authority, can continue to operate at itinerant events wherever possible.
Schedule 3 accompanies clauses 11 to 13 and sets out the detailed framework for the trading offence, along with provision for authorised trading and the issuing of fixed penalty notices. Those measures will help ensure that major sporting events can be delivered safely and smoothly, while protecting spectators and supporting a consistent, well-managed event environment. The schedule creates a time-limited criminal offence of carrying out trading activity or arranging for, or permitting, such activity in a relevant public part of a restricted trading zone, unless it is authorised or an exception applies.
To ensure proportionality, the trading restrictions apply only in what the Bill defines as a “relevant public part”. That includes highways, publicly accessible buildings used for sporting events, buildings generally used as carparks or transport hubs, or any place other than a building that is accessible to the public.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments today, and when we discussed the issue last week during the pre-Committee briefing. The Government are rightly seeking to balance the commitments required to host major international sporting events with the rights of existing local traders. Those are not easy to balance, and unfortunately, I am sure that there will be disputes when we get to such events in the future. However, even though I have concerns about what enforcement may look like, I appreciate what the Government seek to do.
The Government amendments define a non-domestic sporting event, and mean that where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, they must, in certain circumstances, require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on already licensed traders. Once amended, the Bill will also provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority. Moreover, the amendments provide that the conditions that may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring them to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed and to define a public authority for the framework.
Following my discussions with the Minister last week, I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled. They will affect locally based traders that operate from the same location throughout the year, such as the long-standing independent food seller and, as the Minister said, burger vans—saying this might get me cancelled by the Conservative party, but I am more of a hot dog guy—[Interruption.] Yes, I should resign; I am sorry! It also means that alternatives are proactively explored to help traders who cannot remain in situ because of the legal commitments required to host the likes of the European championship or the world cup. On the face of it, the amendments are sensible, particularly given the Government’s concession in allowing domestic but recurring events to apply to use the framework.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Persons granting trading authorisations
Amendment made: 33, in clause 12, page 9, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) arrange for a decision to grant, or to refuse to grant, a trading authorisation to be reviewed.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would provide that the conditions which may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring the person to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Trading provisions
Amendments made: 63, in schedule 3, page 35, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.
Amendment 64, in schedule 3, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in relation to a non-domestic sporting event, a designated authorising person must have regard to any existing trading licences.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.
Amendment 65, in schedule 3, page 36, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) In the case of a domestic sporting event, paragraph 1(1) does not apply in relation to a trading activity which is carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Rachel Hopkins.)
Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 14, page 10, line 8, leave out “specify”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 35 to 37.
Clause stand part.
Clause 15 stand part.
Government amendment 38.
Clause 16 stand part.
Government amendments 66 to 79.
Schedule 4.
Stephanie Peacock
Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. If sponsors believe that their rights can be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of UK-hosted events diminishes. These provisions protect against inventive marketeers seeking to benefit financially from such events without making the necessary commitments. Clause 14 requires regulations for an event to specify the time period when the unauthorised association provisions apply. Opportunities to exploit major sporting events commercially begin as soon as those events are awarded to the UK. We must therefore put these provisions in place as soon as is practicable.
However, proportionality is important. The Bill includes protection for business activities that may create an unauthorised association with an event. They would protect the use of a company or domain name provided that the business had used it before the date set in regulations and it continues to be used in the same way. That date could be before the regulations are made, such as when the UK is publicly announced as the host. Regulations must also designate one or more persons to undertake enforcement. There will usually be only one designated enforcer, but the Bill provides flexibility for joint enforcement rights, which might be needed where commercial rights are exercised by an event owner and a local organising committee.
Clause 15 requires regulations to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation to associate with an event. In practice, that is likely to be an event owner or organiser. This is how official partners will be able to legally associate with an event. Clause 16 enables regulations to specify further exceptions to the prohibition beyond those already in schedule 4 to ensure proportionality and protect honest business use.
Amendment 38 in my name makes it clear that the power to create further exemptions to regulations may be used to exempt small and microbusinesses. This approach maintains flexibility to apply an exemption for small and microbusinesses in regulations, ensuring that we can satisfy individual event requirements. That said, I am clear that local businesses should be able to benefit from these events. Exemption or not, I want event owners to know that I do not consider that a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes during Euro 2028, for example, is likely to suggest to everyday members of the public that the business has an official association with the event.
Schedule 4 sets out the scope of the prohibition on unauthorised association, exceptions and remedies and relief available to enforcers. Businesses will be prevented from engaging in the unauthorised use of a representation, such as marketing and selling Euro 2028-themed products in a way likely to suggest to members of the public that there is an official association. If there is a breach, an enforcer can seek remedies through the civil courts. The courts will be able to grant any relief that is available to enforce a property right, including damages or an injunction. They will also be able to make orders related to goods and documents that create an unauthorised association.
To protect the use of existing intellectual property rights, there are exceptions for the use of a registered trademark or design, or any other intellectual property right, provided that that right existed before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. That means that anyone who has an existing intellectual property right will be unaffected by these provisions.
As I have touched on already, there are also exceptions for continued business activity and providing certain types of factual information when providing goods or services. That would enable a hospitality venue to announce that it was screening an event, for example. There are a number of other exceptions, including reporting on and sharing information about a sporting event. Where there is a breach, a court will have a number of options to make it right. For example, following an application, a court may order that goods are surrendered to an enforcer or that infringing branding is removed. As a last resort, a court could order that goods or documents be destroyed.
Amendments 66 to 70, tabled in my name, are technical amendments that clarify when enforcement action can be taken against the use of a trademark or design that someone has submitted for registration. They make it clear that enforcement action can be taken only if the application is subsequently refused, withdrawn or abandoned. For itinerant events, the application must have been submitted before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. Amendment 71 provides clarity and assurance for event organisers, businesses and regulatory authorities about the registration and revocation of trademarks and designs. It ensures that the unauthorised association prohibition does not prevent a person from registering a trademark or design, or provide grounds for declaring a registered trademark or design to be invalid.
I now turn to amendments 34 to 37 and 72 to 79, tabled in my name. With the inclusion of recurrent events, we have carefully considered additional proportionate safeguards for businesses in respect of these events, given they may take place year in, year out. First, the amendments establish clear time limits within which provisions can be applied to domestic events: no more than 28 days before a domestic event begins and no more than seven days after it ends. That is the period in which events are most likely to be commercially exploited. Secondly, the amendments introduce blanket protections for the use of intellectual property rights. For example, that means that a business using a registered trademark or design before or after the unauthorised association provisions are applied to a recurrent event will not be captured.
Finally, the amendments set out how activity carried out by a business before the unauthorised association provisions begin to apply—and continued in the same way after—will not be affected. That would ensure, for example, that Wimbledon farmers’ market can continue to operate unaffected. These provisions will ensure that recurrent event organisers can take action against what matters: big businesses carrying out marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution. There have been recent examples of activity that, had these powers been in place and applied to recurrent events, would likely not have been permitted. It would, of course, not be appropriate to name those large, well-known companies, because at the time, those marketing stunts and campaigns were not restricted. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Welcome back, everyone. Clauses 14 to 16 and schedule 4, as the Minister outlined, incorporate issues around unauthorised association regulations. Again, I think that most of the amendments the Government have tabled are about trying to ensure that there is a proportionate approach to the regulations and how they will impact other traders and different communities. That is a principle that the Opposition will not necessarily oppose.
The Minister may be aware, however, that representations were made last night by the Sport and Recreation Alliance raising concerns about amendment 76 in particular and what it sees as an unlevel playing field between domestic events and international events. The domestic events that we are talking about today clearly make a significant economic contribution, and there are significant concerns around unauthorised association with their brands and trademarks. The request—and I think it is a fair one—from the sports bodies, as part of the briefing paper, is for the Government to publish guidance alongside the Bill. Will the Minister consider publishing such additional guidance to reassure the sports bodies that they can mitigate some of the concerns in the briefing paper?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those points, and the constructive way in which he made them. Towards the end of my contribution, I outlined why we have taken a different approach for recurrent versus itinerant events. Recurrent events are most likely to be subject to marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement at particular times. I have obviously chosen not to give examples, because it would not be fair on the companies, as it was perfectly legitimate when they did the marketing stunts and campaigns. I will certainly take that request away. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about further guidance, but we are in regular conversation with the sector, and we are always happy to have those conversations.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Amendments made: 35, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at beginning insert “specify”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at beginning insert
“in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, specify”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Amendment 37, in clause 14, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) In the case of a domestic sporting event, the period specified in accordance with subsection (2)(a) must—
(a) begin no earlier than 28 days before the day on which the sporting event begins, and
(b) end no later than 7 days after the day on which the sporting event ends.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would place restrictions on the period during which the unauthorised association provisions may apply to a domestic sporting event.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Exceptions to the prohibition on unauthorised association
Amendment made: 38, in clause 16, page 11, line 14, at end insert
“(including, for example, activities carried out by a small or micro business)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would clarify that regulations applying the unauthorised association prohibition to a sporting event may provide for an exception for activities carried out by a small business or micro business.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Unauthorised association provisions
Amendments made: 66, in schedule 4, page 38, line 39, leave out
“was made before the relevant commencement date”
and insert “is made”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, leave out “a” and insert “the”.
This amendment makes a drafting clarification.
Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event, the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (8)(a) must have been made before the relevant commencement date.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 39, line 7, leave out
“trade mark or design before the determination of”
and insert “representation unless”.
This amendment and Amendment 70 clarify that in a case where paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 4 applies, the court may not grant relief, or make an order under paragraph 4(4), in relation to a representation that involves the use of a trade mark or design, unless the application for registration of the trade mark or design is refused, withdrawn or abandoned.
Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert
“is refused, withdrawn or abandoned”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 69.
Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert—
“(9A) Nothing in this paragraph prevents, or provides grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of—
(a) a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994;
(b) a design under the Registered Designs Act 1949.”
This amendment would ensure that the prohibition on unauthorised association does not prevent, or provide grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of a trade mark or design.
Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 39, line 33, at beginning insert “Subject to sub-paragraph (1A),”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 73, in schedule 4, page 39, line 35, leave out
“before the relevant commencement date”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 74, in schedule 4, page 39, line 38, leave out
“before the relevant commencement date”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 75, in schedule 4, page 39, line 39, leave out from “right” to end of line 40.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 76, in schedule 4, page 39, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event—
(a) the trade mark mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be registered before the relevant commencement date;
(b) the design mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) must be registered before the relevant commencement date;
(c) the intellectual property right mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) must subsist immediately before the relevant commencement date.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 72 to 75, would mean that in the case of a domestic sporting event, the prohibition on unauthorised association is not breached by the use of a registered trade mark or design (whenever the trade mark or design is registered), or the exercise of an intellectual property right (whenever the right subsists).
Amendment 77, in schedule 4, page 40, line 1, leave out “(1)(a)” and insert “(1A)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 42, line 23, leave out from “to” to end of line 24 and insert
“be read in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A);”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Amendment 79, in schedule 4, page 42, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), references to the relevant protection date—
(a) in the case of a domestic sporting event, are to the day on which the specified period begins;
(b) in any other case, are to the date specified in the regulations as required by section 14(2)(b).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would mean that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the relevant protection date is the first day of the period during which the unauthorised association provisions apply to the event.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17
Transport regulations
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
“17A Rural event impact assessments
(1) Before making regulations under section 2(2) which apply the transport provisions to a sporting event, the Secretary of State must ensure that a rural event impact assessment has been carried out where the event is to take place wholly or partly in a rural area.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an event is to be treated as taking place in a rural area where the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) the event takes place in an area in which there are limited alternative routes for road users;
(b) the closure, restriction or diversion of roads in connection with the event is likely to result in materially longer journeys for persons living, working or carrying on a business in the area; or
(c) such other criteria as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State are met.
(3) A rural event impact assessment must assess the likely effect of the sporting event, including any proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions, on—
(a) the availability of alternative routes;
(b) the length and accessibility of alternative routes;
(c) access for carers;
(d) persons who require access to employment and who may suffer financial loss as a result of being unable to arrive at their place of employment;
(e) local businesses, including small and micro-businesses;
(f) residents and persons who ordinarily travel through or within the affected area; and
(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The assessment must identify and consider measures for mitigating any adverse effects identified under subsection (3), including measures designed to—
(a) maintain reasonable access for residents and businesses,
(b) prioritise access for carers and persons providing essential care,
(c) minimise disruption to persons travelling to or from employment,
(d) minimise disruption to small and micro-businesses,
(e) take account of the absence or limited availability of alternative routes in rural areas, or
(f) provide reasonable access for emergency and essential services.
(5) The Secretary of State must not make regulations under section 2(2) applying the transport provisions to a sporting event to which this section applies unless the rural event impact assessment has been considered and determined to be acceptable by an independent person or body appointed or designated by the Secretary of State.
(6) The person or body appointed or designated under subsection (5) must be independent of the sporting event organiser.
(7) Before an assessment is determined to be acceptable under subsection (5), the independent person or body must have regard to representations from—
(a) each local authority whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event,
(b) any mayor of a combined authority or other directly elected mayor whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event, where the Secretary of State considers that consultation with that mayor is appropriate, and
(c) such other persons or bodies as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe criteria for determining—
(a) which local authorities and mayors are to be consulted for the purposes of subsection (7),
(b) the matters to be considered by an independent person or body in determining whether an assessment is acceptable,
(c) the form and content of a rural event impact assessment, and
(d) the measures which may be regarded as appropriate mitigation measures for the purposes of subsection (4).
(9) Where a local authority or other relevant public authority has already put in place measures which address the matters required to be considered under this section, the rural event impact assessment may take those measures into account and need not require equivalent measures to be put in place again, provided that the independent person or body is satisfied that those measures are adequate having regard to the likely impact of the event.
(10) Where a sporting event is recurring, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a rural event impact assessment to cover more than one occurrence of the event, provided that the assessment is reviewed where there is a material change in—
(a) the scale or nature of the event,
(b) the proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions,
(c) the affected road network, or
(d) the circumstances of the affected communities.
(11) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require a rural event impact assessment before transport regulations apply to sporting events in rural areas likely to cause significant disruption due to limited alternative routes. The assessment would consider impacts on residents, carers, workers, small businesses and essential services, with mitigation measures approved by an independent person or body.
It is wonderful to have an opportunity to say something other than “abstain”. Amendment 20 would require a rural event impact assessment before transport restrictions are put in place for a major sporting event. While this might seem niche, it is a direct result of something that recently happened in Dorset.
Road closures for sporting events can cause disruption anywhere, but in rural areas the consequence can be very serious. There is often no alternative route, and a diversion that may add 20 minutes in a city can add hours in the countryside. I have received several examples from constituents who struggled with road closures during a recent sporting event in Dorset. In one case, carers were repeatedly given conflicting instructions about how to reach a vulnerable resident. Despite assurances that they would be allowed through, they were stopped and diverted several times. As a result, my constituent’s father was left in bed in his own faeces for several hours.
This amendment would simply require organisers and the Government to consider those impacts before transport restrictions are imposed. It would look at access for carers and emergency services, and the effect on local businesses and workers, ensure that arrangements for access to affected areas are effective, and allow essential carers and emergency services to reach those they support, whether realistic alternatives exist or not. It should also require independent scrutiny and consultation with affected local authorities.
This is not about preventing events from happening—far from it. Major sporting events bring real benefits to rural areas. It is about ensuring that proper planning prevents unnecessary disruption. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.
Mr French
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling amendment 20, which raises an important point about the impact that major sporting events can have on our rural communities. I am very sorry to hear about his constituent’s issues.
Major sporting events can bring significant benefits to local economies, supporting businesses, creating jobs and attracting visitors to areas that might not otherwise receive that level of attention. However, we must also recognise that in rural areas, the transport arrangements needed to accommodate an event can have a disproportionate impact on those who live and work nearby. Where there are few alternative routes, road closures and traffic restrictions can make it difficult for residents to go about their daily lives; for carers, as we have heard, to reach those who depend on them; and for local businesses and essential services to operate normally. It is right that those impacts are properly considered when transport regulations are being developed in consultation with local people.
Organisers and the relevant authorities should seek to minimise disruption whenever possible, while recognising that some restrictions may be necessary to ensure the safe and successful delivery of a major event. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that the genuine concerns of rural communities are taken into account when these arrangements are made. Does she believe that existing processes are sufficient to achieve this, or that the Bill already provides sufficient safeguards in this respect? Ultimately, we all want to see major sporting events succeed, but that success should not come at the unnecessary expense or suffering of the communities that host them.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling amendment 20, and I recognise the importance of protecting rural communities from avoidable disruption during major sporting events. I echo the shadow Minister’s comments about the terrible situation in which his constituent’s father found himself.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I will outline why. However, I am happy to take some of the points that have been raised across the Committee on this issue and reflect them to the relevant Transport Minister, or perhaps a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Of course, the Bill deals specifically with major events, but I appreciate that lots of sporting events of different levels cause disruption to local areas.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Will the Minister outline the type and scale of events that are likely to meet the threshold for implementing a transport plan, or for organisation or local authority applications to apply?
Stephanie Peacock
The transport plan is England-only. In our conversations with the devolved nations, they decided that they did not need the power as they were already well equipped. The transport plan is England-only and applies to itinerant events, which are the big major events like Euro 2028. We have chosen to exempt the transport provisions for recurrent events because we believe that, where such events are already established, they have well-established relationships with local authorities and transport authorities.
Of course, that does not mean that they go without challenges, as has been outlined by a number of members of the Committee, so I am really happy to reach out to the relevant Transport Minister—I believe it is my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—and reflect some of those points. I have seen those challenges with smaller sporting events in my own constituency, and I recognise that sporting events of every level can cause disruption. I am very happy to take both those points away.
I will respond in a little bit more detail to amendment 20, which the hon. Member for West Dorset outlined so thoughtfully. We believe the Bill provides a proportionate framework within which local impacts can be considered, and we want the event to take into account the affected road network and the characteristics of the area. The issues identified in amendment 20 include alternative routes and access for residents, carers, businesses and emergency services. They are—or should be—already considered by local authorities, highways authorities, event organisers and transport planners to establish planning and traffic management arrangements.
Where secondary legislation is proposed for a particular event, those impacts would also be considered through the usual policy and regulation-making process. The amendment would duplicate existing arrangements for ensuring that impacts are considered, while adding cost, delay and uncertainty. It would also risk giving an external body a veto, in effect, over the use of transport provisions, even though the Secretary of State, as decision maker, is already accountable to Parliament and subject to the usual public law duties and challenge.
The Government’s approach provides flexibility for both rural and urban areas, allowing those closest to the affected communities to shape mitigation. It is quite hard to justify the additional statutory protection for rural communities when this applies to communities of all kinds, although I appreciate that the challenges the hon. Gentleman outlined are often unique to rural areas. For those reasons, we cannot support amendment 20, but I have very much heard the points he has made.
Edward Morello
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and for her commitment to write to her colleagues in the Department for Transport. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 17 and schedule 5 work together to provide a practical transport framework for major sporting events where extra co-ordination is needed. The basic point is straightforward: major sporting events can place real pressure on local roads and transport networks, and those impacts do not stop at local authority boundaries.
Schedule 5 provides the framework for dealing with such impacts, allowing transport plans to be prepared, reviewed and revised, where needed, and it provides for temporary road traffic measures to support the safe and effective operation of an event. That framework is practical and proportionate. It requires consultation with the relevant authorities, including local traffic authorities, local authorities and the police so that local knowledge is built from the start. The powers are also temporary and time-limited. They are there to deal with a specific transport impact of a major sporting event, not to create a permanent change in how local roads are managed.
Clause 17 complements that framework; it recognises that some events will affect more than one local traffic authority area, and that effective traffic management may therefore require authorities to work across boundaries. The clause allows regulations applying schedule 5 to designate one or more local traffic authorities for the purpose of paragraph 3. In practice, that ensures that the temporary traffic arrangements can operate in a joined-up way where an event affects more than one area. However, I will be clear about the safeguard: a local traffic authority may be designated only with its consent. This is not about taking powers away from local authorities, or about overriding them; it is about enabling co-operation on an agreed basis, where that is needed to manage the real-world impacts of major sporting events.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
When one authority consents, but a neighbouring authority does not—I have the River Trent as a genuine administrative boundary between Nottingham city and Nottinghamshire county council—what are the provisions? In that scenario, the county might say yes, but the city no. If that is not clear, will the Minister consider the matter further?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Whenever we plan major sporting events, we want to do it with consultation and in collaboration. We would have that ongoing conversation. I will come on to outline the reserve backstop power if that simply cannot happen. He provided a hypothetical, which is hard to comment on—I can speak to him in slower time outside Committee—but we have a backstop power if we cannot get agreement.
Schedule 5 contains a reserve backstop power for the Secretary of State. That exists for a straightforward reason: if essential temporary traffic measures are needed for an event, and a local traffic authority has been asked to act but has failed to do so within the period set out in the schedule, there must be a way to ensure that the measures will still be put in place. The backstop is not the normal way of working; it is a fall-back to protect delivery where necessary. Taken together, schedule 5 provides the framework, and the clause helps that framework work properly across local boundaries. They are practical and proportionate provisions, with consultation, consent and clear limits built in.
Mr French
I echo the comments of the Minister, who outlined why the clause and schedule 5 need to work together. As we have heard, it is important that neighbouring authorities seek to work together to ensure that sport and transport regulators and major sporting events are joined up.
We have all seen, in various host cities, the new phenomenon of athlete lanes to ensure that participants and spectators can get between venues. That is vital. In 2012, I remember one lane of the Blackwall tunnel was shut. That was quite controversial in the build-up to the games, but in my memory at least, it worked fairly well to allow London 2012 to go ahead in great fashion for the country, as we all know.
My only real question for the Minister on this clause is to do with her comments about ensuring that local authorities have their say and are consulted. Does she have any thoughts about how a local authority would then consult local residents? That picks up on the earlier amendment 20 about ensuring that local residents can have their say. We all recognise that if someone lives next to a major sporting stadium, they will get disrupted once or twice a year, or more if there are more fixtures, as with a football club. For the likes of Wimbledon, people have a fortnight of pain. How would that work in terms of consulting residents who are perhaps not used to the more regular disruption during a major championship?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. It is for local authorities to consider how they speak to their local residents. For example, in my area of Barnsley, sadly, we are not hosting any Euro 2028 matches, but I know that my local council has area forums, which divide into much smaller areas than just the borough of Barnsley. They provide a mechanism for residents to meet councillors directly. That is broader consultation.
At the very beginning of this morning’s sitting, I listed the host cities for Euro 2028. They will all consider not just the benefits, but how they work with local residents to ensure not only that they can take part fully, but that as much of the disruption as possible is mitigated. I hope and expect that local authorities will talk to residents in a meaningful way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 18
Enforcement of offences
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 18, page 11, line 35, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) a Northern Ireland department;”.
This amendment would provide for any Northern Ireland department to be an enforcement authority for the purposes of Part 1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Schedule 6.
Stephanie Peacock
I have said that offences under the Bill are aimed at deterring action. However, where that is not the case, careful consideration has been given to the manner of enforcement. The clause provides for enforcement of the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences in the Bill. It sets out who can undertake the enforcement action, such as local trading standards authorities in England, Scotland or Wales, the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, or the Competition and Markets Authority in respect of the ticketing offence.
Enforcement roles and responsibilities, however, may vary between events and it is appropriate for a Bill of this nature to provide flexibility. That is why regulations can set out additional enforcers on a case-by-case basis, provided that they are public authorities. For events that involve complex operational planning or significant public funding, it may be more appropriate to confer enforcement responsibility on a local organising committee that has been established as a time-limited non-departmental public body to deliver an event.
Clause 18 provides for the use of investigatory powers under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is a well-established suite of investigatory powers that trading standards officers in particular will be familiar with. The clause also provides for the use of powers available under part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 in relation to the ticketing offence. The use of enforcement powers should be proportionate and tailored to the local context. That is why regulations can impose additional conditions on their use under the clause—for example, introducing additional safeguards. To support cross-boundary enforcement and mutual aid arrangements, a local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may enforce an offence in a part of England and Wales outside that authority’s area. Similarly, a local weights and measures authority in Scotland may enforce an offence in a part of Scotland outside that authority’s area.
I want to say a brief word about funding, because I know how important that is. These are time-limited offences, and enforcement costs are expected to be low. Costs will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and for itinerant events, they may be factored into the event budget, which is typically split between central Government and host city authorities. We addressed the funding position as it applies to recurrent events earlier.
Schedule 6 sets out the investigatory and enforcement powers available to enforcement officers in relation to ticketing, advertising and trading offences. Most of the powers are familiar. They are based on powers available under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and are used by enforcement officers in other contexts. A small number of additional powers are drawn from previous sporting events legislation to ensure that enforcement can be timely, proactive and proportionate.
Paragraph 2 makes clear when seizure and detention powers may be used in relation to offences under the Bill: to prevent an offence from taking place, to stop it continuing, or to secure goods or documents as evidence. Paragraph 3 provides additional search and seizure powers in public places where an enforcement officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence. It is intended to deal in particular with itinerant traders who are not operating from premises. These are targeted powers. They do not allow an officer to search a person, and items may be seized only when that is reasonably necessary to stop or prevent an offence from being committed or to preserve evidence.
Schedule 6 provides for powers to deal with unauthorised advertising where seizure may not be practical or effective. In those cases, there will be temporary powers to conceal, deface or destroy infringing advertisements, so that prompt action can be taken—for example, where a billboard can be covered rather than removed. As under the Consumer Rights Act, it will also be an offence to obstruct or impersonate an enforcement officer. Finally, the schedule provides for compensation where property is damaged as a result of unlawful enforcement action or where unreasonable force is used. Regulations must also provide a mechanism for resolving disputes about entitlement to compensation or the amount payable.
It is vital that the Bill works effectively across all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, at the request of officials in Northern Ireland, we have introduced Government amendment 39 to enable enforcement of the ticketing, advertising and trading offences to be undertaken by any Northern Ireland Department, rather than just the Department for the Economy. That simply ensures that the Bill operates effectively in Northern Ireland.
Clause 18 maintains flexibility for an enforcement authority to designate other public authorities as enforcers in regulations. That flexibility helps ensure that enforcement arrangements can be tailored appropriately to each jurisdiction and event.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment made: 40, in clause 18, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (10).—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on 47.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 19
Exceptions for internet service providers
Question proposed, That clause 19 stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 20 to 22 stand part.
Government amendment 41.
Clause 23 stand part.
Government amendment 44.
Clause 24 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
This group deals with the supplementary and general clauses, which broadly relate to the enforcement of offences under the Bill, as well as two minor and technical Government amendments, which I will turn to first.
Amendment 41 has been introduced at the request of the Welsh Government, following our close engagement as the Bill has developed. It ensures that if the Senedd wishes in future to change how the powers operate in Wales, it can do so through its own legislation where the matter is devolved. The amendment simply makes the Bill work properly within the Welsh devolution settlement, and it aligns with several recent Acts that confer concurrent powers.
Amendment 44 is a technical amendment to clause 24 that addresses an omission in the Bill by including district councils in the definition of “local authority” in England. The Bill gives all relevant local authorities a voice in shaping the regulations that provide exceptions to the advertising and trading offences. The amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant district councils in England before exception regulations are made. That is important, as those authorities play a role in licensing street traders, providing consent for advertising and engaging with local businesses.
Clause 19 provides for the liability of internet service providers in relation to the ticketing, advertising and trading offences and the prohibition on unauthorised association. In line with the UK Government’s existing approach to intermediary liability, it ensures that an internet service provider will not incur liability by storing or hosting user-generated information if, when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it constituted an infringement and, upon finding out, promptly removed it or disabled access to it.
Clause 20 provides that where a ticketing, advertising or trading offence under the Bill is committed by a body corporate with the consent of an officer of that body, or is attributable to neglect on their part, both the individual and the company will be liable to have proceedings brought against them.
Mr French
On internet service providers and what the Minister has just said, how does she envisage this working for social media companies? Say that, in the middle of Euro 2028, a load of illegal black-market sites suddenly appeared. How would the Government look to enforce the legislation?
Stephanie Peacock
That is a very good point. If I may write to the hon. Gentleman, I would be very happy to do so.
Clause 20 has also been drafted to capture Scottish partners and partnerships. It also clarifies that where a ticketing offence is committed by a body corporate or Scottish partnership outside the part of the UK where the offence applies, an officer or partner can be found guilty only if they are a UK national or habitually resident in the UK.
Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State or a devolved Government to increase the maximum level of fixed penalty for the advertising and trading offences up to £1,000. A devolved Government can increase the maximum level in their jurisdiction only, and the Secretary of State may increase the level UK-wide with consent. The Secretary of State will also be able to increase the maximum fixed penalty above £1,000, and the maximum financial penalty for the ticketing offence, to reflect changes in the value of money over time, such as inflation. Regulations under the clause are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Clause 22 requires regulations that apply the advertising and trading provisions to make guidance or other information available on the way in which those provisions will be applied to a specific event. That will ensure that those who could be affected understand the impact of the provisions and the potential options available to them. We expect the guidance to be made available no less than six months before an event, with local authorities and other delivery partners playing an important role in ensuring that it reaches those who are most likely to be affected.
Clause 22 also provides that regulations that apply the ticketing, unauthorised association and transport provisions may make provision for guidance or other information about their application. Regulations under the clause may specify who is responsible for providing that guidance or information, such as an event organiser or a local authority, and any matters that should be included, such as mitigations available at a local level. Regulations may also require the guidance or other information to be shared with persons of a specified description, such as street traders or advertisers with an existing licence in an affected area.
Clause 23 makes consequential amendments to schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and part 1 of schedule 15 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That is to enable enforcement authorities under clause 18 to use the investigatory and enforcement powers in schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act to enforce the ticketing, advertising and trading offences. The clause also amends the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to enable the Competition and Markets Authority, local weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to use the enforcement powers in part 3 of that Act for ticketing offences, as infringements that harm the collective interests of UK consumers.
Clause 24 is an interpretation clause: it simply serves to define terms used in this part of the Bill. None of the definitions presented in this clause are unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “local authority”, “advertising” and “trading licences”, and are included simply to provide clarity and precision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Consequential amendments
Amendment made: 41, in clause 23, page 15, line 36, at end insert—
“(A1) In Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru)—
(a) in paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities), insert at the appropriate place—
‘the Sporting Events Act 2026;’;
(b) in paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown), insert at the appropriate place—
‘the Sporting Events Act 2026;’.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would provide for the restrictions on the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru under paragraphs 8(1)(c) and 11(1)(a) of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be disapplied in relation to the concurrent powers conferred by the Sporting Events Act 2026.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Interpretation
Amendments made: 42, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, at end insert—
“‘domestic sporting event’ has the meaning given in section 2(7);”.
This amendment provides for a definition of “domestic sporting event”.
Amendment 43, in clause 24, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“‘the event organiser’, in relation to a sporting event, means the person responsible for organising the event;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of “the event organiser”.
Amendment 44, in clause 24, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
“(ia) a district council;”.
This amendment would alter the definition of local authority, in relation to England, so that it covers district councils.
Amendment 45, in clause 24, page 17, line 42, at end insert—
“‘micro business’ means a business with fewer than 10 staff;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of “micro business”.
Amendment 46, in clause 24, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
“‘non-domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is not a domestic sporting event;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of non-domestic sporting event.
Amendment 47, in clause 24, page 18, line 10, at end insert—
“‘public authority’ means a person who exercises functions of a public nature;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of public authority.
Amendment 48, in clause 24, page 18, line 10, at end insert—
“‘small business’ means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This provides for a definition of “small business”.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Power to give financial assistance
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 25, page 19, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”
Amendment 6, in clause 25, page 19, line 41, at end insert—
“‘the appropriate national legislature’ means—
(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”
Clause stand part.
Mr French
Clause 25 will give the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the power to provide financial assistance for sporting events and connected purposes, such as legacy programmes and social initiatives, in their respective territories. Potential recipients will include public bodies, national governing bodies and organisations established to deliver sporting events. Assistance may take different forms such as grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, and will be provided subject to conditions and contracts.
Amendments 4 to 6 would prevent the financial assistance provisions in clause 25 from becoming a blank cheque for successive Governments to fill out as they see fit. It is a well-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Paragraph 33.2 of “Erskine May” says that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that
“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant.”
It continues:
“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers, first to authorise the relevant expenditure”.
Hon. Members who know their history understand that the role of Parliament developed gradually. Our ancient predecessors in the Saxon Parliament were involved in financial matters such as the setting of Danegeld, and after a rebellion by the barons, Magna Carta was sealed by King John at the beginning of the 13th century. Clauses 12 and 14 of Magna Carta limited the King’s ability to levy certain forms of taxation without first summoning a council, or Parliament, to establish common consent.
I will stop the history lesson there, because it will get the deputy leader of the Conservative party quite excited at the thought that I am trying to steal his crown, and I will not detain the Committee with a further elaborate history of Parliament—there are much more eloquent and qualified people to do that. The point I am making, which the Government must remember, is that they must come to us in this place with their proposals for the expenditure; it is then up to us, as representatives of those who will be most affected by taxation, to give our collective consent.
The provisions of this Bill deliberately circumvent not only that established precedent, but the legitimacy and primacy of this place. We do not know exactly which events the Bill will be applied to in future or how much financial assistance the Government of the day may wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment that potentially spans many decades into the future. It is not unreasonable to imagine a Prime Minister who comes in without standing in a general election, who has no fiscal discipline and who leaves a multibillion-pound black hole that needs filling. Whether that be the current Prime Minister or previous Prime Ministers, we want to make sure that we have future-proofed the Bill for all eventualities and all Governments.
Unsurprisingly, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much the Government propose to spend as a result of clause 25. The nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this one means that that is unknowable. If the Government cannot tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term—though we know the estimated cost of the Euros in 2028—it is reasonable and necessary to make sure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, we hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation. All my amendment seeks is to apply a sound and long-standing constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed by the House of Commons, which is elected by our constituents. I hope that the Minister and the Committee agree. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak to clause 25 and then respond to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Clause 25 introduces a bespoke funding power for sporting events held in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It provides a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning through a single dedicated power to fund an event and its associated activities. It will remove the current piecemeal reliance on powers from multiple other Acts such as the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 or section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It will provide greater clarity and transparency on the legal basis for providing financial assistance, and will ensure that we can support the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events and their associated activities, an objective that has broad cross-party support.
In practice, the Secretary of State will have a single, dedicated power for future funding of sporting events in England, while Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments will be able to do the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they do not require an equivalent power. Crucially, we know what it costs to deliver a sporting event from the ground up, and recognise that the magic of such events often goes far beyond the playing field. That is why the clause will enable us to fund not only the operational delivery of sporting events themselves but associated activities, whether they are feasibility assessments, cultural Olympiads or legacy programmes to maximise benefits for local communities. Where appropriate, the clause also enables us to attach conditions to funding, whether by requiring repayment with interest or post-event impact assessments.
The Government fully agree that, when it comes to public money, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable, but amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, are unnecessary. Clause 25 is not intended to create a blank cheque. I appreciate his enthusiastic defence of his amendments and the history that he drew upon, but the clause is a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. Robust mechanisms are already in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. That is in addition to scrutiny by parliamentary Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Any such spending is also subject to the usual accounting officer responsibilities. In the case of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport spending, the Department’s permanent secretary is accountable to Parliament and must ensure that spending accords with the “managing public money” principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of Government investment. Requiring such scrutiny, especially without thresholds, could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance where needed. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw the amendment.
Mr French
Dr Allin-Khan, I am sure you will be delighted to know that I will not come in with another chapter of Saxon or parliamentary history. However, the Opposition remain concerned about oversight and the role of Parliament in dictating and determining how much money is spent on sporting events. That is not to say we are not in favour of such events; we just believe that Parliament has a role to play in scrutinising any future funding commitments. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 25, page 19, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) In the case of a sporting event that is a one-off sporting event of significant international or national interest, the power under subsection (1) may be exercised for the purpose of securing community benefit in areas hosting the sporting event.
(2B) Community benefit under subsection (2A) may include—
(a) the repair of potholes and other defects in roads;
(b) the repair, maintenance or improvement of pavements and footways; and
(c) the renewal, repair or improvement of road markings.
(2C) The provision made under subsection (2A) must, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed towards improvements which provide a lasting benefit to the community and remain available for use after the sporting event has ended.
(2D) In determining the amount and conditions of financial assistance under subsection (2A), the appropriate national authority must engage with affected local authorities including on the condition of roads, pavements, footways and road markings in areas materially affected by the hosting of the sporting event.
(2E) In this section ‘one-off sporting event’ means a sporting event which is held in the United Kingdom on a non-recurring basis, including the Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Rugby World Cup or FIFA World Cup.”
This amendment would enable Government financial assistance for major one-off sporting events to support improvements to potholes, pavements, footways and road markings in communities hosting the event.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 19, in clause 25, page 19, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) In the case of a sporting event that is a one-off sporting event of significant international or national interest, the power under subsection (1) may be given for the purpose of securing improved mobile electronic communications coverage and capacity in areas hosting, or materially affected by, the sporting event.
(2B) Financial assistance under subsection (2A) may be used for—
(a) the installation, improvement or upgrading of mobile communications infrastructure;
(b) the installation or upgrading of mobile phone masts, small cells and associated equipment;
(c) the provision of additional network capacity to address increased demand arising from the sporting event; and
(d) associated works necessary to provide or improve mobile electronic communications coverage for residents, businesses, visitors and emergency services.
(2C) The provision made under subsection (2A) must, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed towards improvements which provide a lasting benefit to the community and remain available for use after the sporting event has ended.
(2D) In determining the amount and conditions of financial assistance under subsection (2A), the appropriate national authority must have regard to the existing availability, coverage and capacity of mobile electronic communications networks in areas materially affected by the hosting of the sporting event.”
This amendment would enable Government financial assistance for major one-off sporting events to support improvements to mobile communications infrastructure and network capacity in communities hosting the event.
Edward Morello
These amendments are about ensuring lasting benefits for communities hosting major sporting events. Events such as the London 2012 Olympics have shown the potential for sporting events to bring investment and improve local infrastructure. We should ensure that communities hosting future events have the same opportunity.
Amendment 18 would allow the use of Government funding to improve local roads, repair potholes, maintain pavements and renew road markings in areas affected by major sporting events. Amendment 19 focuses on mobile phone coverage and capacity. Large events put enormous pressure on local networks, leaving residents and businesses struggling to get signal when demand increases. The amendments would ensure that public and private investment in major sporting events benefits the wider area, not just the venue itself. Better roads and more reliable mobile coverage can improve daily life, support local businesses and help communities to prepare to host future events.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling these important amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill’s funding power can be used to deliver lasting benefits to communities affected by one-off sporting events.
As I set out in debate on the previous group, that power neither creates additional funding nor establishes a new route for securing public money; it simply provides the legal underpinning for the lawful delivery of funding that has already been agreed through existing processes and against existing criteria. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that funding can be channelled into improving potholes, pavements, footways and road markings, while amendment 19 would ensure that the power may be used to improve mobile communications, infrastructure and network capability.
In both cases, the hon. Member’s objective is clear: to secure benefits for local communities that endure beyond the sporting event. The Government fully recognise the importance of that objective. Indeed, that is precisely why we invest in legacy programmes, which may include the types of infrastructure improvements envisioned in the amendments. Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they risk going beyond the intended scope of the funding power. As made clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 25 is intended to support the operational delivery of sporting events and associated activities. Elements of the amendments would push that power beyond its proper limits, as their link to enabling sporting events or related activity is tenuous.
However, if any improvements in the areas highlighted in the amendments are necessary for the event to take place, clause 25 is broad enough to allow for that, making the amendments redundant. Given the wide range of issues that sporting events may contend with, we have deliberately not been prescriptive on the specific forms of support that may be provided under the power. The amendments would cut across that principle by singling out particular categories of support without clear evidence for doing so. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 18 and not to press amendment 19 to a vote.
Edward Morello
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 14
Fees
“(1) Where regulations under section 2(1) apply the advertising provisions or the trading provisions to a domestic sporting event, a relevant authority may require the event organiser to pay fees to the authority in connection with some or all of the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event.
(2) In imposing such a requirement, a relevant authority must have regard to the need to secure that the total amount of fees paid does not exceed the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event.
(3) ‘Relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority;
(b) an enforcement authority.
(4) ‘Relevant costs’ means—
(a) where the relevant authority is an enforcement authority, the costs incurred by the authority in connection with enforcing the advertising offence or the trading offence;
(b) where the relevant authority is a local authority, the costs incurred by the authority in exercising its functions in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Advertising offence: exceptions for newspapers and periodicals
“(1) The advertising offence does not apply to an advertising activity carried out in a restricted advertising zone if that activity consists of selling, distributing or providing a current newspaper or periodical.
(2) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply to the selling, distribution or provision of a current newspaper or periodical—
(a) in the street if the selling, distribution or provision is done in a manner that causes undue interference or inconvenience to persons using the street;
(b) if the version of the newspaper or periodical sold, distributed or provided has been created for the purpose of sale, distribution or provision only to, or principally to, members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone; or
(c) which is accompanied by any item if the whole or principal purpose of including that item is to promote a product, service or business specifically to members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone.”—(Mr French.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 would ensure that Parliament has a proper say over the scope of restrictions being imposed, rather than leaving too much discretion in the hands of Government. It would provide a specific exemption to the advertising offence for the sale, distribution and provision of current newspapers and periodicals within restricted advertising zones, subject to sensible safeguards against abuse.
This measure is not without precedent. It draws on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021, which included exemptions of this kind. We have now also seen the Scottish Parliament take a similar approach in the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2026, which incorporates exemptions into primary legislation instead of relying on secondary legislation and regulations. As the Opposition have argued in this place and the other place throughout its passage, this framework Bill often contains insufficient detail about the circumstances in which exemptions from the advertising offence should apply.
As I am sure the Committee would agree, newspapers and periodicals have a significant role, and their ordinary sale and distribution should not inadvertently fall foul of restrictions that are designed to prevent unauthorised commercial advertising around major sporting events. The safeguards in new clause 4 are also important. It would not create a blanket exemption for publications specifically produced to target spectators in restricted advertising zones, nor would it permit promotional inserts designed principally to advertise products or businesses to those attending the event. The new clause seeks therefore to strike a sensible balance between protecting legitimate newspaper distribution and preserving the effectiveness of advertising restrictions.
Ultimately, if Parliament is to approve a framework that could be applied to a wide range of major sporting events, it should also have a meaningful role in defining the exemptions to the offences that the framework creates. No Government should be given such broad powers to determine that through secondary legislation later. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, and I hope that the Minister will explain why the exemptions should not be set out clearly in the Bill itself.
Stephanie Peacock
The shadow Minister raises an important point about the proportionality of advertising measures when it comes to the sale of newspapers and periodicals in a restricted zone. I reassure him that the Bill already provides a broad power to narrow the scope of the advertising offence through regulations.
In keeping with precedent, our intention is to bring forward an exemption in regulations for newspapers, magazines and periodicals, as was the case for London 2012 and the Birmingham Commonwealth games. We believe that regulations are the best place for that, as we must make sure that the Bill works in tandem with existing laws across the UK. That approach ensures that all exemptions are relevant, proportionate and applied in a way that reflects specific event requirements, local circumstances and consultation with affected stakeholders.
On that basis, and as we are aligned in all but the mechanics by which the outcome is secured, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the motion. As we discussed in our conversation last week, it is a balance between having too much in the Bill and it being a framework Bill allowing powers to be switched on and off depending on the event. It is about being event-ready when we are bidding for events, but not being too prescriptive. I totally hear the shadow Minister’s points—we intend to do just that through regulations.
Mr French
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events
“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”—(Mr French.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 would require a review of the Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee should be well aware, hosting major sporting events is not simply a question of having world-class venues, passionate supporters and a strong sporting heritage; it is also about whether the country remains an attractive and competitive place to do business.
Under this Labour Government, businesses are facing higher employment costs, including an increase in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage. Many venues, hospitality businesses and other organisations involved in delivering major sporting events are also contending with higher business rates, energy bills and wider operating costs.
As the Minister will know, major sporting events require significant investment—often years in advance and from successive Governments. Organisers need confidence that the costs of employing staff, operating venues and delivering events will remain manageable. If the United Kingdom continues to become a more expensive place to host these events—as it has done over the past two years under this Government—international organisers may, given the competitive landscape, simply take their business elsewhere.
The Government should not underestimate what is at stake. Major sporting events bring visitors to our towns and cities, support jobs across hospitality and tourism, generate income for local businesses and showcase Britain to the world. Like the Olympics, they can also inspire the next generation to participate in sport, leaving a lasting legacy well beyond the final whistle. The Government cannot reasonably claim to want the economic benefits of hosting these events while ignoring the impact that their own decisions and tax policies may have on our ability to secure them.
The new clause would not prescribe a particular economic policy or prevent the Government from pursuing their wider objective. It would simply require the Government to assess the consequences of their decisions and consider whether they were making Britain more or less competitive as a destination for major sporting events. That should be a matter of basic probity. We should be looking at the cumulative impact of taxation, employment costs, business rates and other economic pressures, rather than considering each in isolation. To do that would be naive and self-defeating, and would undermine the entire purpose of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the merit of the new clause. If we want Britain to remain a leading destination for major sporting events, we need to understand the barriers that the Government may be creating and take those findings seriously.
Stephanie Peacock
New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Government’s economic policies on the United Kingdom’s ability to attract and host major sporting events. The UK is a trusted, innovative and highly experienced host nation, offering a stable and trusted environment, strong delivery partners, leading experts, world-class facilities and an economy that is showing strong international resilience in the face of global challenges—that matters. It is one reason why the UK continues to be such an attractive place to host major events. We have a world-leading reputation not just for excellence in event delivery, with a proven track record of staging complex events to the highest standard, but for our economic stability. The Chancellor’s approach to the public finances—delivering good growth in every postcode, underpinned by stable public finances and fiscal discipline—has been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and is already yielding results.
Our future pipeline of sporting events is clear evidence of that global reputation. Despite growing international competition, we have continued to secure major events: the grand départ of the Tour de France and the Tour de France Femmes in 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028. We have submitted competitive bids for the World Para Athletics in 2029 and of course the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup, and the feedback from event owners continues to highlight their strong desire to host here.
I have heard at first hand about the challenges facing the sector—especially rising costs and high consumer expectations—and I am committed to tackling them. I reassure the Committee that the Government are working closely with the sector, not just in sport but across the major events industry, to understand how best we can support their growth, respond to shared challenges and encourage greater collaboration across sectors. We know that the UK’s competitive advantage does not rest solely on the levels of funding that it provides or the wider economic landscape, but on the strength of our overall offer.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will withdraw his new clause.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. This is probably one of the few occasions we have not agreed today. The broader landscape for businesses that would need to be involved and to host events is extremely challenging—I am sure that her inbox is similar to mine in that regard. The introduction of the hospitality tax, the tourism tax and the like are significant pressures on businesses that would normally be in a position to benefit from hosting such tournaments.
That does not diminish our brand. As the Minister rightly highlights, we have a successful track record of delivering major events—I am not seeking to talk down the country in that regard—but the Opposition have serious concerns about the economic impact of this Government’s policy on the ability to host events in the future. We will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 8 would require the Government to publish their major sporting events strategy within three months of the passing of the Act. The new clause seeks to answer a fundamental question about why we are here: where does this begin? The Minister will know that her Department promised this House and the sectors it represents a major events strategy. That strategy has yet to appear.
How can the Government and this Department establish a cohesive, multi-sector major events strategy if one of those sectors already has a plan in place? I appreciate that this is being rushed through because of Euro 2028, but the sporting sector will now have an advantage over other sectors. Those other sectors will have to circumnavigate the plans already in place for sport. We want all the sectors that DCMS covers to be able to benefit from a major events strategy, but by proceeding in the way they have, the Government are going to make that all the more difficult in agreeing on one, holistic strategy with competing interests.
The Government have made their decision, however, and I understand that instead of having a major events strategy or Bill for all the sectors they seek to represent, the Government have taken the legislative slot available to them and have proceeded with this Bill now. They are not necessarily wrong to do so, but they could have done so in a more strategic way. Regardless, we are here now, and my new clause is designed to ensure that the Government, who have delayed countless announcements and strategies over the past two years, cannot do so again on this sporting strategy.
The Minister in the House of Lords promised that it was
“the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2026; Vol. 858, c. 652.]
Unfortunately, intentions are not good enough for some of the only remaining growth industries after this Government’s hammering of businesses. To ensure that there is no more dither or delay to this long-promised strategy, the new clause would ensure that the Government must bring it forward in accordance with their own timeline. I hope the Minister agrees that it will simply enable her and other Ministers to ensure that the strategy is prioritised within her Department and that it will be published without unnecessary delay.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for tabling the new clause and for recognising the importance of the upcoming UK national events strategy. We have committed to publishing the strategy by spring 2027, as he outlined. As a Government, we are committed to supporting the whole events ecosystem, from community events to major events, spanning culture, sport, live music, ceremonial and business events. The strategy will recognise the importance of events in driving economic growth, telling our national story and projecting the best of the UK across the world. Events connect communities, bring people together and create a unique sense of pride in place. The strategy must be created in partnership with our world-leading events industry, the devolved Administrations and local government to consider how we can work collaboratively to capitalise on these opportunities. I am happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail if he would like to arrange a time for us to discuss it.
I welcome the important work of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to shine a light on issues impacting the major events sector. From its evidence, I heard at first hand the importance of a more joined-up approach across Government and working collaboratively with industry on the implementation of different regulations and laws. The evidence that the Committee heard, however, did not include a universal call for more legislative powers to support the safe and successful delivery of events.
Over the summer, I convened two roundtables with the events industry and ministerial colleagues from the Home Office, the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which reflects the commitment of the Government to working collaboratively with the events sector. My officials convened more than 60 stakeholders from across industry in Sheffield last month to seek further feedback on their priorities for the strategy. It is vital that we do this collaboratively and in partnership with industry and national and local government partners.
I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that the timing of this Bill is driven by the need to respond to time-critical legal and commercial guarantees required to host major sporting events such as Euro 2028. It would not be right to limit the level of engagement with industry to tie the timing of the strategy to the Bill. We look to the business managers in the Commons as to when the Bill will proceed to Report, but it is eminently possible that we will have Royal Assent by the end of this year or early next year. I know that the hon. Member’s new clause seeks the publication of a major sporting events strategy within three months of Royal Assent. Given that I have committed to spring 2027, I hope that we will be aligned on that. I therefore respectfully ask that he withdraw the new clause.
Mr French
I have heard the Minister and I take her at her word. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”—(Anna Sabine.)
This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We all know what happened the last time England hosted the world cup. Not only does hosting the world cup appear to result in English victory, but it boosts the economy, brings fans together and inspires people around the country. We see the framework in the Bill as an opportunity to give fans what they want: the world cup hosted right here in the UK in 2042. To make that a reality, we need a proactive strategy, and that is what the new clause would provide: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a feasibility study and a bidding plan.
Stephanie Peacock
I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for the United Kingdom hosting the FIFA world cup in 2042. As we have not hosted the tournament since 1966, this Government are absolutely keen to see it return here one day.
We know that major sporting events, especially world cups, have a unique power to foster social cohesion, spark regional pride and unite divided communities. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to hosting major international and cultural events with pride. It is why this Government have backed the bid for the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup to be hosted in the UK. Hosting on home turf would be a monumental moment in our sporting history, driving growth and leaving a lasting legacy for women’s sport and football more broadly.
However, it is important that we follow appropriate processes to select which events we back. The new clause would effectively legislate for preferential treatment and an expectation of public expenditure on one particular event. As much as I would love to commit today to launching that bid, we will perhaps save it for another day. I cannot accept the new clause, but I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and the sentiment behind it.
Anna Sabine
On that basis, and with much enthusiasm in return, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Prohibition of ticket touting and regulation of resale platforms
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person resells, or offers to resell, a ticket for a major sporting event at a price exceeding the original cost.
(a) For the purpose of subsection (1), the original cost of a ticket is the original ticket price plus any unavoidable fees, including service charges.
(2) A person operating a ticket resale platform must not charge service fees exceeding a statutory cap prescribed by regulations.
(3) A person commits an offence if the person resells, offers to resell, or lists for resale a number of tickets exceeding the number they were entitled to acquire in the initial primary market sale for that event.
(4) A person who operates a ticket resale platform has a legal duty and strict obligation to—
(a) monitor listings on the platform, and
(b) enforce compliance with subsections (1), (2), and (3) to ensure the rules are adhered to on the platform.
(5) The Competition and Markets Authority may impose a financial penalty on any person or ticket resale platform found to be breaching the provisions of this section, up to an amount not exceeding 10% of their annual global turnover.”—(Anna Sabine.)
This new clause implements ticket touting protections by making it illegal to resell major sporting event tickets above original cost, capping resale platform service fees, placing legal duties on resale platforms to monitor and enforce compliance on their sites, and empowering the Competition and Markets Authority to enforce penalties of up to 10% of global turnover.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—
“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—
(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(c) engage in surge pricing.
(2) In this section—
‘primary market’ refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and
‘surge pricing’ means when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”
This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.
Anna Sabine
No fan should miss out on watching their favourite team play, but at the moment that is the reality every single time tickets come on sale. I am sure many of us know the heartbreak of waiting in an online queue for hours with no luck, only to see tickets pop up minutes later on resale sites at extortionate prices because bots and serial bulk buyers got there first.
Every year, fans lose £145 million to greedy touts. It is clear that the system is broken and is not working for the everyday fan. Labour promised in its manifesto and in the King’s Speech to tackle ticket touting, which we welcome—and yet here is a Bill with the framework to deliver that, and the Government are choosing to kick the can down the road.
Fans should not have to wait for change. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to make it illegal to resell tickets above face value. We want to ban surge pricing and cap resale platform fees at 10%. The Sporting Events Bill is the perfect vehicle to make those changes, and that is what new clauses 10 and 11 would do. I urge the Government to back them.
Stephanie Peacock
When I addressed clause 5, I noted our commitment to specific ticket touting legislation that will go further than the amendments tabled by the hon. Member. We know that for too long the joy of attending live events has been marred by unfair practices in the secondary ticketing market, most notably the systematic activities of ticket touts.
The Government are fully committed to tackling industrial-scale touting once and for all, improving transparency around pricing practices and putting more money into fans’ pockets through the ticket tout banning Bill. That Bill will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under this Bill, to ensure that genuine fans can recoup their costs when they can no longer attend an event. It will also provide strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance.
The time-limited ticket provisions in this Bill are designed to satisfy event owner requirements. The Bill is therefore not an appropriate vehicle for wider reform of the secondary ticketing market. These are significant issues and are best addressed through the planned dedicated legislation. When it comes to surge pricing, businesses are already required by law to provide fans with clear and accurate pricing information before purchase and to ensure that fans are free to make decisions without undue pressure or manipulative practices that might distort their choices. I know that hon. Members will have heard the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading about how committed this Government are to introducing the legislation.
Anna Sabine
I thank the Minister for her comments and I hear what she says, but in the absence of planned, timed legislation to take the matter forward, we would like to press the new clauses to a vote, starting with new clause 10.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Some 30% of children aged 11 to 17 spend their own money on gambling, and up to 2.7% of adults could be considered problem gamblers. Behind those figures are real people whose mental health, finances, family life and relationships are being harmed. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms, and we believe that the events covered by the Bill should be free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. This new clause is the right thing to do, as it will help prevent the harms that gambling is causing by keeping adverts out of major events hosted in the UK.
Mr French
I will declare an additional interest, given the nature of the new clause: I am also the shadow gambling Minister, and in that capacity I attend a number of events with the racing community throughout the year.
The new clause seeks to prevent gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sports events covered by the Bill. I understand the intention behind it, but we believe that it is short-sighted and would strip sports of vital sponsorship funding. When I think about how the Bill might work in future, I think of the likes of the grand national, which could qualify. Preventing regulated gambling advertising would have a huge impact on the sport of racing, and particularly on the grand national.
We have previously had a Westminster Hall debate about gambling advertising, and there are of course legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to it. Responsible gambling must remain a priority, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at major sporting events is the right approach, especially given that the rise of illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses a greater threat to all consumers, and particularly to younger people.
As we have heard, sponsorship plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends.
Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences not only for major competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting economy and broadcasters as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. In recent weeks, Betfred has withdrawn its long-term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in future, especially for the women’s game.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling the new clause, which would prohibit gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at major sporting events. The Government support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms and right to enter into sponsorship arrangements. The licensed gambling sector has provided vital financial support to sports through these arrangements, which are constructed within a robust regulatory framework that ensures that advertising is socially responsible and does not promote excessive or harmful gambling.
In 2024, we welcomed the introduction of the sponsorship codes of conduct across all major sports, which promote social responsibility, support reinvestment in the sports and strengthen safeguards for children. Sporting bodies have reviewed how the codes are working in practice, and the Government welcome their ongoing commitment to reviewing and strengthening the codes. We also welcomed the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship, which will help to reduce the prominence of gambling advertising in football. Advertising remains one of the clearest ways in which licensed operators can distinguish themselves from the illegal providers that pose a threat to British consumers, which is why the Government recently consulted on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and physical advertising within sports and other sectors.
The Government recognise that the relationship between sport and gambling must be handled with care, particularly because of the impact it can have on children, young people and vulnerable people. We will consider the fullest possible range of evidence before taking any further policy steps. Any additional restrictions must be thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. We continue to support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms while working with the Advertising Standards Authority, the Gambling Commission, the Betting and Gaming Council and sporting bodies to further raise standards. Let me be clear: the purpose of the Bill is neither to alter the regulation of gambling advertising nor to limit the benefits sponsorship arrangements can bring to the sector. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Anna Sabine
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments, but we respectfully disagree. The Liberal Democrats would like to press our new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Edward Morello
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 13 would ensure that major sporting events that receive Government funding or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport. If public money is being used to support a major sporting event, some of that benefit should reach local schools, grassroots clubs and community facilities. In West Dorset, that could mean better facilities, more opportunities for children to play a sport and more support for local clubs.
We have seen this model work through the legacy funding for women’s rugby following the women’s rugby world cup. After the Red Roses’ historic world cup win, £14.55 million was allocated to support the legacy of women’s rugby. The number of girls playing age-grade rugby has increased by 35%. That funding has also helped clubs improve their changing facilities, many of which were built when rugby was predominantly played by men and do not provide the facilities that women and girls need. Improving those facilities can make a real difference to whether people feel able to take part.
The same approach could help to support other groups who face barriers to sport, including disabled people, children in deprived areas and young people who lack access to equipment or local facilities. The new clause would make sure that major sporting events leave a lasting benefit to local communities. I hope that the Government will support it.
Mr French
I am sympathetic to the intentions behind new clause 13, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling it. The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that major sporting events receiving Government financial assistance or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport itself. The hon. Gentleman outlined a number of concerns and challenges that grassroots sports clubs face, and we want to increase participation across the country.
Major sporting events should be about more than what happens over a few days or weeks of competition. They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure that communities rely on long after the final whistle. As we have heard, that is particularly important for children and young people in deprived communities and for groups with traditionally lower levels of participation. We should be asking how the excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities.
However, we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges, as we have already discussed today. Any requirement attached to Government support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring organisers from bringing major competitions to this country.
Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that those commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply box-ticking exercises.
That is why, when in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, from an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport to £300 million in emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme that we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. That was worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and it has totalled almost £3.5 billion paid directly to schools since its introduction in 2013.
This Government, on the other hand, have, I am afraid to say, cut funding, with £57 million cut from the opening school facilities fund, £35 million cut from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million cut from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme and £25 million cut in real terms from grassroots sports investment compared with the previous Conservative Government.
I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government intend to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events themselves and reach the communities that need them most, given that the Government she serves in continue to cut funding for grassroots sport.
Anna Sabine
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for tabling new clause 13. In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, we have loads of fantastic community sporting groups. I recently visited the Frome Flyers and the Somer Valley Strikers, two women’s walking football clubs in my constituency that represent everything that is great about local community sport.
Community groups could benefit enormously from increased funding, and that is exactly what the new clause would deliver. As my hon. Friend said, there are clear examples of major international events leaving lasting community benefits when local funding is built in, particularly for women and girls and disadvantaged groups in sport. This Bill is our chance to make sure that international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area; they should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. The new clause simply makes sense, and I hope that the Government will support it.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling this important amendment. I fully recognise the issue that he raises, and the Government share his commitment to maximising the positive legacy of the major sporting events that we support. However, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as the Bill already provides for the outcomes that he seeks to achieve while retaining the flexibility to adapt our approach to the specific event in question. I will outline some of the reasons why.
First, the likelihood of bringing social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it is already one of the criteria for consideration when considering whether the framework can be applied to a major sporting event. That would encompass the sort of community participation and wider local benefit that the hon. Member is seeking to secure. Secondly, clause 25 of the Bill is also clear that funding can be given subject to conditions, which could include requirements relating to these important issues, where appropriate.
More broadly, the vast majority of major sporting events that could fall within the scope of the Bill would already have social impact embedded within them from the outset. In the case of itinerant events, the gold framework is clear that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact for communities around the country, including to drive up levels of physical activity and participation.
Also, many recurring events already support significant community engagement. To give just a few examples, Wimbledon annually contributes nearly £50 million to the work of the Lawn Tennis Association, the London Marathon Foundation has distributed over £120 million in grant funding since its inception in 1981, and the British grand prix generates more than £100 million annually for the local economy.
Critically, the evidence is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities they are meant to support, enabling us to target support and funding where they are truly needed. That is why we think the current system works; it recognises that one size does not fit all and provides flexibility that the new clause would reduce.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I welcome the Bill’s focus on legacy and, of course, the Minister’s genuine enthusiasm for women participating in sport. As a former Minister for Sport, I know how great major sporting events can be for people and for our country. However, they do not automatically ensure more female participation, more women coaches and more women on boards. A good example is that a football competition might result in five new 5G pitches, but if subsequently those pitches are booked out for 90% of the time by boys and men, that will not move the diversity and inclusion dial or do anything about the gender gap. Therefore, it would be very good to hear how the Minister will actually address those issues. If she does not feel that it is appropriate to respond in complete detail today, I would be more than happy to have a chat with her later, or of course she could write to me.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the former Minister for her contribution; she makes a really important point. That is why, as the Minister for Sport, I set up the women’s sport taskforce, and I am happy to invite her to attend one of the taskforce’s meetings. It would be very useful if she could share the expertise that she obviously gathered when she did the job that I currently do.
Through that taskforce, we are looking at practical ways to support women in sport. I will give just one example from our grassroots funding; we want to double priority slots. The hon. Member for West Dorset also gave some really good examples from the women’s rugby world cup. I was delighted to attend four matches at that tournament, but I also visited a grassroots rugby event just up the road from me in West Yorkshire. I did so with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), who was then the Foreign Secretary and is now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as the event was in her constituency. We went to see at first hand the effect that the women’s rugby world cup was having on getting girls into rugby.
Consequently, I totally take the point that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling made, and I appreciate that we want to see the dial on diversity and inclusion move more quickly, which is why we are doing things in that regard through our allocation of money for grassroots funding. However, I am happy to write to her and indeed to continue the conversation.
I will bring my comments to a conclusion by addressing some of the other points that the hon. Member for West Dorset made. As I have said, we welcome the intention behind the new clause. However, we respectfully suggest that the Bill already provides the right framework to secure the benefits he seeks to achieve without imposing additional statutory tests that might reduce flexibility. Of course, the first major sporting event that we hope to use this Bill for is Euro 2028. We have already established that there will be £45 million of social impact, with £23 million being given by the UK Government.
I do not recognise the picture that the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—painted of our approach to grassroots sport. We have put £400 million into grassroots sport and £500 million into major sporting events, with £250 million going in through Sport England.
On the PE premium, there are certainly examples of where it works well, but sadly too many kids are not active. Indeed, 50% are not meeting the chief medical officer’s guidelines. That is why we make no apologies for taking a different view. Of course, however, that issue falls outside the scope of the debate that we are having today.
Edward Morello
I thank the Minister for her comments, and the shadow Minister and all other Members who contributed. Given the perilous state of community sports in my constituency and across the UK, it is incumbent upon us to drive as much money as possible down to those grassroots clubs and community centres, so the Liberal Democrats would like to divide the Committee on new clause 13.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 26, page 20, line 11, after “State” insert “or a devolved authority”.
This amendment and Amendments 50 to 53 enable the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland department to by regulations make provision that is consequential on this Act. Such regulations may only contain provision which is “within devolved competence” (see clause 24(3)).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 50 to 53.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 54.
Clauses 27 to 29 stand part.
Government amendment 55.
Clause 30 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
These Government amendments and the final clauses provide the practical provisions needed to ensure the Bill is implemented effectively and operates as intended. Amendments 49 to 53 have been developed following engagement with the devolved Governments and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that this UK-wide framework operates effectively while respecting the responsibilities of the devolved institutions. It is right that where consequential changes are needed within devolved competence, the relevant devolved Government should be able to make those changes directly.
Without these amendments, the UK Government could be required to make consequential regulations on behalf of a devolved Government, even where the use of the framework otherwise engages only devolved matters. The powers are therefore practical, proportionate and consistent with the devolution settlements. They will allow each Government to take responsibility for the operation of the framework within its own area of competence. A devolved authority may make only provision that is within its devolved competence, and the power may be used where the change is consequential on the Bill. Where regulations amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the relevant legislature.
Government amendment 54 is a consequential drafting change that ensures that the de-hybridising provision captures regulations made via the affirmative procedure. Government amendment 55 seeks to remove the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords. Parliamentary procedure requires such an amendment where a Bill originating in the Lords has financial implications, to recognise the Commons’ primacy in matters relating to taxation and charges on public funds.
Turning to the final provisions, clause 26 gives the Secretary of State a standard power to make consequential changes to existing legislation where necessary as a result of the Bill, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny attached. Clause 27 sets out the general provisions that apply to the Bill’s regulation-making powers, including providing detail on the procedures that will govern regulations made under the Act. Clause 28 provides that the Bill extends across the United Kingdom, reflecting its purpose of supporting the delivery of major sporting events in all four nations. Clause 29 provides for commencement two months after Royal Assent. Finally, clause 30 gives the Act its short title: the Sporting Events Act 2026. These are sensible and necessary amendments and provisions.
Mr French
I will be very brief because I appreciate that this is the last part of the Bill. I recognise the points that the Minister made, and working together and ensuring the accountability of the devolved Administrations is vital for all major sporting events, not least the 2028 UEFA European championship. They are going to be across a number of the British Isles, which is a great thing for the whole of the United Kingdom to hopefully partake in and benefit from. Going forward, we would like to see some detail on some of the queries we have raised today. I appreciate the Minister’s offer to follow up with a meeting to talk through some of the various aspects within the Bill that we have discussed. His Majesty’s official Opposition have tried to approach the Bill in a manner that I hope is respected and understood by the Government. We have tried to improve it rather than delay or stop it for the sake of it. We think that the Bill can help deliver major sporting events for the country and the whole UK to benefit from going into the future.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the way in which His Majesty’s Opposition have approached the Bill and the Bill Committee. I am happy to continue the conversation with the shadow Minister if he would like. I made an offer to talk about the event strategy, but I am indeed happy to talk about the broader major events and, indeed, the roll-out of the Euros. There were some specific questions put to me about unofficial resale and how the Competition and Markets Authority will enforce that, but I am happy to write to him on some of those specific points. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has approached this.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Amendments made: 50, in clause 26, page 20, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made by a devolved authority under this section may contain only provision which is within devolved competence in relation to the devolved authority.”
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Amendment 51, in clause 26, page 20, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by—
(a) an Act passed—
(i) before this Act, or
(ii) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act, or
(b) devolved primary legislation passed or made before this Act.”
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Amendment 52, in clause 26, page 20, line 17, leave out from “section” to end of line 18 and insert
“that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by an Act or devolved primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Amendment 53, in clause 26, page 20, line 20, at end insert—
“(5) Section 24(3) (meaning of ‘within devolved competence’) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of Part 1.
(6) In this section—
‘devolved authority’ means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, or
(c) a Northern Ireland department;
‘devolved primary legislation’ means—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(c) Northern Ireland legislation.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Regulations
Amendment made: 54, in clause 27, page 23, line 1, after “If” insert “a statutory instrument, or”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment makes a consequential change to the de-hybridising provision in subsection (12).
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Short title
Amendment made: 55, in clause 30, page 23, line 15, leave out subsection (2).—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to conclude the Committee by putting some thanks on the record. Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for your chairship and for taking the whole Bill through Committee today. I thank all Committee members for their contributions to the Bill and for giving up their time to serve on the Committee. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with us along the way. We look forward to continuing to work with them as we implement the Bill. Their views have been vital in shaping the Bill before us today.
I thank the DCMS officials who have worked incredibly hard on the Bill, and the civil servants and officials from across the Government. I thank Thomas Williams from my private office, who has supported the Bill, and I am ever grateful to my head of office, Sam, and my parliamentary team. I thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Whips. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through Parliament, and I appreciate the constructive debate that we have had today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 108, in clause 20, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) The first and second sets of exceptional circumstances do not apply where a person has been convicted of—
(a) a specified offence within the meaning of section 306 of the Sentencing Code, or
(b) an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 committed against a person under the age of 18.”
This amendment would prevent foreign nationals convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences, or sexual offences against children, from resisting deportation on the long-residence or “unduly harsh” family grounds, whatever their sentence.
Amendment 109, in clause 20, page 18, line 29, leave out from “is” to end of line 30 and insert
“over and above that which would arise if the circumstances in subsection (4) or (5) applied.”
This amendment would require very compelling circumstances going beyond the long-residence and family exceptions, rather than circumstances merely “at least as strong as” them, restoring the formulation in the current section 117C(6).
Amendment 110, in clause 20, page 18, line 34, after “3(5)(a)” insert “, (5)(b)”
This probing amendment would include family members of a deportee within the definition of a person liable to deportation for the purposes of Part 5A.
Amendment 111, in clause 20, page 18, line 36, leave out “(2) to (4)” and insert “(2) and (3)”
This amendment is related to Amendment 107. It would retain section 117D(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which sets out how a period of imprisonment is calculated for the purposes of Part 5A of that Act.
Clause stand part.
New clause 45—Deportation of foreign offenders—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 32, for subsections (1) to (3) substitute—
‘(1) In this section “foreign criminal” means a person—
(a) who is not a British or Irish citizen, and
(b) who is—
(i) convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence, or
(ii) charged with an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.’
(3) In section 33, omit subsections (1)(b), (2), (3) and (6A).
(4) In section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, omit all instances of the word ‘knowingly’.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order in respect of a foreign national who is convicted of an offence or who is charged with an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
New clause 66—Automatic deportation: forced-marriage offences—
“(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows
(2) In subsection (1)(c), for ‘Condition 1 or 2’ substitute ‘Condition 1, 2 or 3’.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Condition 3 is that the person has been convicted of an offence under section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (offence of forced marriage: England and Wales).’”
This new clause would amend section 32 of the UK Borders Act to create a separate basis for automatic deportation where a person is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence under section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, concerning forced marriage.
New clause 67—Particularly serious crime: National Security Act 2023 offences—
“(1) Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) After (5ZB) insert—
‘(6) A person is presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if—
(a) the person is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence listed in the National Security Act 2023; and
(b) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (2).’”
This new clause would make any conviction of an offence under the National Security Act 2023 an automatic deportation offence, as is currently the case with offences under Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. This morning, we were debating clause 20 and amendments 107, 109 and 111, and I will pick up where I left off.
There will be an assessment of the public interest in every case before an article 8 breach can be found, taking into account not only the seriousness of someone’s offending, but other relevant factors such as their immigration status. The aim of the new article 8 test is to take a broader view of the public interest and move away from the sentence-based or offence-type focus when assessing the severity of offending.
Conservative amendment 109 seeks to elevate the test of “very compelling circumstances” in the third set of exceptional circumstances, requiring circumstances above and beyond what would be demonstrated by meeting either of the other two exceptional circumstances tests. The exceptions in the current article 8 framework are different from the three sets of exceptional circumstances, and it is through that new framework that very compelling circumstances must be viewed.
The third exceptional circumstance does not replace the current “very compelling circumstances” test and does not operate in the same way. The three sets of exceptional circumstances are intended to be exactly that: exceptional. They serve as a gateway to a full consideration of whether the public interest in deportation is outweighed in the individual case.
Under the current framework, the exceptions operate as exceptions to deportation. If a foreign criminal meets one of the exceptions, or can show very compelling circumstances over and above those exceptions, deportation will be prevented. Under the new framework, the third exceptional circumstance, which refers to very compelling circumstances, simply ensures that a person has a sufficiently strong article 8 claim before the courts consider whether the interference with their article 8 rights outweighs the public interest in deportation.
Meeting that threshold does not mean that deportation is automatically avoided—it is not a pass or a threshold to get over. It acts a filter to ensure that, where a person cannot meet one of the three sets of exceptional circumstances, their article 8 claim will fail without the court proceeding to a proportionality assessment. This is not a watering down of the very compelling circumstances test as it applies under the current framework. Rather, under the new framework, “very compelling circumstances” operates as a gateway to a full consideration of whether the public interest in deportation is outweighed in the individual case.
Amendment 110 would bring those being deported as the family member of a foreign national offender into scope of clause 20. Although the Immigration Act 1971 makes provision for the deportation of family members as a matter of policy, that is not a course that Governments have pursued in practice. Instead, where a family member’s permission to stay in the UK depends on the status of the person being deported, the usual approach is to consider their removal under administrative removal powers. Where a family member raises an article 8 claim, it will be considered under section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The exclusion from clause 20 of section 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article 8 is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of a foreign national whose own conduct has made them liable to deportation. A family member liable to deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 is not being deported because of their own criminality or conduct. Even if that power were used, it is appropriate that any article 8 claim made by that family member should continue to be assessed under the framework set out in section 117B of the 2002 Act, rather than under the deportation framework.
The amendments are unnecessary. Clause 20 already ensures that no foreign criminal will avoid deportation simply by establishing an impact on their private or family life. Instead, every case will require a full assessment of whether any interference with article 8 rights is outweighed by the public interest in deportation, with particular weight given to the seriousness of offending. The clause therefore strengthens the deportation framework while preserving individual assessment in genuinely exceptional cases.
Before I move on, I will come back to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion this morning, as I did not get the chance to respond. In our debate about financial independence and public service pressures, she mentioned discrimination and concerns about vulnerability. I want to be clear that the intention is not to penalise people for hardship. The reforms preserve protections for vulnerable people and children while making it clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight. It is about restoring balance, not removing safeguards.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion also made points about the best interests of children. We are clear that the reforms set out in clause 19 do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making. The reforms ensure that children’s interests are considered along with other important factors, such as compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system. The reforms ensure that all relevant factors are properly weighed and that immigration decisions are fair, proportionate and consistent. Where a decision is taken to remove a child’s parent, it is ultimately for the parents to decide whether to relocate together as a family or to live separately. In every case, the Government will continue to consider fully the best interests of any child involved.
The hon. Member addressed the word “precarious” and questioned whether clause 19 would mean that little weight is given to family life in cases in which a person has anything short of settled status. Let me be clear: the reforms do not penalise people for following our immigration rules. They place greater emphasis on the public interest in fair and controlled immigration systems, with greater weight given to compliance with the rules and with the public interest test. Article 8 rights developed while someone is in the UK without settled status are given less weight, in recognition that the ability to maintain family or private life in a country where the individual does not have permanent status is naturally precarious.
I was also asked what constitutes a serious breach. We expect everyone to comply with the conditions of their permission to stay, but I want to be clear that not every breach is equal. It would not be right to treat a minor or technical breach in the same way as deliberate or repeated non-compliance, or to equate it to illegally entering or staying in the UK. Whether a breach is serious will depend on its circumstances. The nature of the breach, why it occurred, its frequency and duration, and whether the individual disclosed it and engaged with the Home Office will all be taken into consideration. Should someone who knowingly and repeatedly fails to comply with reporting requirements be treated the same as someone who misses a single appointment for a genuine reason and informs the Home Office? I think we know the answer. The distinction allows us to take a firm but proportionate approach, including where multiple breaches taken together amount to serious non-compliance.
On the impermissibility limit and whether the circumstances of offending are taken into account, proposed new section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 expressly allows for the
“nature and circumstances of…offending”
to be taken into account. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to clarify those points from the earlier discussion.
On new clause 45, the Government are clear that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes should be deported. The automatic deportation provisions already provide a firm statutory framework for foreign criminals who meet the relevant thresholds. They require that a deportation be made wherever the law permits. Outside the automatic deportation regime, there are legal powers to consider the deportation of any non-British citizen whose deportation is conducive to the public good. The new clause is not a proportionate or workable way to strengthen that framework. It would make any conviction, however minor, sufficient to trigger automatic deportation. If a foreign national had resided lawfully in the country for over 40 years but received an absolute discharge on conviction for a minor motor offence, the Home Secretary would be under a duty to deport them unless an exemption applied. Such deportations would likely be unworkable in practice because they would be disallowed on appeal on article 8 grounds under the European convention on human rights.
The new clause would also bring a person within the definition of a “foreign criminal” merely because they had been charged with an immigration offence before a court had determined guilt. That would be fundamentally contrary to our legal system, in which an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and it would represent a substantial expansion of the auto-deport regime. The new clause would also remove statutory exceptions and delete the word “knowingly” throughout section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Those changes could have consequences well beyond the stated aim of the new clause, including for criminal liability, fairness and the UK’s international obligations.
Decisions to deport must be robust, lawful and capable of withstanding challenge. A measure that is drafted too broadly risks delay, additional litigation and outcomes that cannot be lawfully implemented. For those reasons, I ask Conservative Members not to pursue new clause 45.
I turn to new clause 66. Forced marriage is an appalling crime, as the Committee would agree. The Government are clear that people who commit that offence must face the full force of the criminal law and, where they are foreign nationals, deportation—I want to be absolutely explicit about that in this Committee. However, we do not consider that the new clause is the right way to achieve that aim. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State is already required to make a deportation order where a qualifying foreign criminal receives a sentence of at least 12 months, subject to the statutory exceptions.
If that threshold is not met, the existing power to deport where conducive to the public good—of which I think this crime would be clear evidence—remains available. The new clause would make a conviction for one specified offence sufficient to trigger automatic deportation, regardless of the sentence imposed. It could therefore apply even when the sentencing court considers that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. That would cut across the existing structure, which uses the sentence and other statutory criteria as indicators of seriousness.
Although I recognise the intention and understand the purpose of the new clause, it is not feasible to specify on the face of the Bill all the crimes that we would like to carry that result. We use sentences to indicate seriousness, and we would be in danger either of missing out or of diminishing other horrendous offences if we did not also put them in the Bill—I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause is also confined to the England and Wales offence and does not address equivalent offending across the whole of the UK. Automatic deportation would in any event remain subject to the exceptions in section 33 of the UK Borders Act, including our international obligations. I understand the objective of the new clause, but for those reasons, and although I acknowledge the abhorrence of forced marriage, I ask the Committee to reject it.
I turn to new clause 67. Before considering it in detail, I draw attention to the fact that, despite what is asserted in the explanatory statement provided by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), the new clause would not achieve her aims. It amends the test for disapplying the prohibition against returning refugees to danger, rather than amending the threshold for auto-deportation. It sets out that convictions for offences under the National Security Act 2023 should be presumed to be particularly serious crimes under section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Article 33 of the refugee convention already allows refugees to be returned to their country when they have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. There is no definition of “particularly serious crime” in the convention, and no universal uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other states parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, which requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words, and it is clear that national security offences are particularly serious crimes.
Article 33.2 of the refugee convention also allows refugees to be refouled where they are a danger to the security of the UK. That may include individuals who engage in unacceptable behaviours in the UK or abroad, or who undertake or espouse extremist views, as well as those who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence to further particular beliefs or provoke others to commit terrorist acts. There is no requirement in the convention for a criminal conviction. The new clause would therefore have very little impact in practice; if anything, it would set the threshold too high. It is already Home Office policy in cases involving national security threats, or where there is a conviction for a particularly serious crime and the individual is considered to pose a threat to the community, to refuse refugee status and to seek to remove the individual from the UK.
It is imperative that any asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes, or who constitute a danger to UK society, do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the United Kingdom by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. For the reasons that I have outlined, I respectfully request that hon. Members do not pursue their amendments and new clauses, and I commend clause 20 to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 21, page 19, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare and best interests of any children in respect of whom a protection claim is made or who are granted protection status.”
This amendment would require regulations under Clause 21 to take into account the best interests of children.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 21, page 19, line 26, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would leave out the provision for regulations about protection status and claims to confer rights or impose obligations on a person.
Amendment 52, in clause 21, page 19, line 34, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment would leave out the provision for regulations about protection status and claims to make different provision for claims made on Convention or humanitarian grounds.
Amendment 137, in clause 21, page 19, line 37, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) which provide for the grant of protection status must provide that, before any further leave to remain is granted to a person with protection status, the Secretary of State must consider whether the person’s removal from the United Kingdom would still breach the United Kingdom’s obligations on the Convention ground or the humanitarian protection ground.”
This probing amendment would require regulations to provide that a person’s continuing need for protection is considered every time their protection status comes up for renewal, rather than only in targeted cases.
Amendment 53, in clause 21, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person granted protection status—
(a) must be given an initial grant of leave to remain of not less than five years, and
(b) must be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain after holding protection status for five years.”
This amendment would mean that people granted protection status would also be given an initial grant of leave to remain for at least five years, with the ability to apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years.
Amendment 54, in clause 21, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that close family members of a person granted protection status are able to apply for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘close family members’ include—
(a) a person’s spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; and
(b) any child, including adopted child, of the person who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) over the age of 18 but dependent on the person.
(3C) Regulations described in subsection (3A) must not require the payment of any fee, charge or immigration health surcharge, nor impose any minimum income, maintenance, accommodation or financial requirement.”
This amendment would require regulations to allow close family members of people granted protection status to apply for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, without having to pay any fee.
Amendment 74, in clause 21, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision which has the effect of making the rights, entitlements or protections available to a person granted protection status more restrictive than those available to a person granted asylum or humanitarian protection before 30 June 2026.”
This amendment would reflect the commitment in the delegated powers memorandum for this Bill that the Clause 21 regulation-making powers “will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees or persons with humanitarian protection.”
Amendment 138, in clause 21, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
“(7) Before a draft of the first statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish—
(a) a draft of the regulations, and
(b) a statement of the changes to the immigration rules which the Secretary of State proposes to make in connection with protection status, including—
(i) the period of leave to be granted to a person with protection status,
(ii) the circumstances in which a person’s continuing need for protection will be reviewed, and
(iii) the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.”
This probing amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations on protection status, together with the proposed Immigration Rules on the length of leave, reviews and the route to settlement under core protection, before asking Parliament to approve the regulations.
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 35—Core protection: protection claims and protection status.
Government new clause 36—Core protection: amendments.
Government new schedule 1—Core protection: amendments.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Barker.
Amendment 75 was tabled to the original clause 21. The Government published amendments on 13 October that removed clause 21 and added new clauses 35 and 36, a new schedule and some additional amendments linked to the new core protection status. However, the issues raised in my amendments 75 and 74—as well as in amendments 51 to 54 tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—continue to be relevant to this debate.
Amendments 75 and 74 are focused on the broad nature of the powers in relation to conferring rights and obligations or requirements on someone with or claiming protection status. That was set out in clause 21(3)(c) and is retained in subsection (3)(c) of Government new clause 36. My concerns remain relevant, as I said. I will not press my amendments to a vote, but the Government need to consider those issues seriously and respond to my points.
Government new clause 35 will remove clause 21(6)—the sunset clause—which limited the time period for regulations to be made under the clause to one year after the Bill comes into force. New regulations can therefore be made indefinitely under that new clause, and I would like the Government to justify that change.
Amendment 75, which was tabled to the Bill as introduced, sought to ensure that regulations must have regard to the best interests of a child. No child rights impact assessment has been produced on any aspect of this corporate action model, despite the fact that the shortening of refugee leave to 30 months already applies to children and families seeking asylum for over six months.
The amendment would make sure that, before making regulations, the Government look properly at the impact of corporate action, including the short periods of leave and the long route to settlement in this—I think downgraded—protection status. I am particularly worried about this in relation to the ability to settle, make family life and all the kinds of rights that children have. When the Government do this, they need to pay particular attention to the Home Office’s legal duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Applied to children and young people, corporate action and the 20-year route will undermine children’s well-established need for stability, particularly refugee children as they recover and rebuild their lives following what is probably life-changing trauma and distress.
In addition, repeated immigration status reviews and uncertainty around long-term residence will drive avoidable school and college moves as families are forced to relocate at short notice or potentially lose housing as a result of insecure employment status and other impacts of this shorter period of leave and the resulting uncertainty. For children, each move disrupts attendance and their ability to get pastoral or potentially special educational support. It can set back attainment or harm social integration, particularly at a stage when continuity is most important for children and young people. Temporary leave cycles and renewal windows are inevitably going to risk coinciding with exams, including GCSEs, highers, A-levels and vocational assessments. Anxiety about imminent status decisions could undermine revision and therefore exam performance, and in some cases, young people facing disruption will miss exams completely. This must be looked at very closely.
I also want the Government to think about children who are getting ready for higher education; they are just about to become adults and are potentially looking to study in this country. Unstable status also makes it harder for young people to secure home fees and student financing. Short grants of leave could push refugees into the overseas fee category for a long time or leave them ineligible for maintenance support. The rights of children growing up in this country would be impacted because they would have university access and progression closed off to them. They might be forced to defer going to university, which might stall their integration into the community or harm their earnings potential.
I do not think that any of those impacts are in the public interest, and I want Government to at least commit today to conducting a child rights impact assessment that will look at all of these things in part 3 of the Bill before Third Reading—and certainly before any of the regulations in this part are made.
Amendment 74 would ensure that there was no regression of rights and entitlements. It is needed because the broad regulation-making powers contained in clause 21 currently have very few limitations on scope. The delegated powers memorandum says that the powers will not be used to reduce the entitlements of refugees, and this amendment would seek to reflect that by requiring that they do not reduce rights and entitlements below what was in place on the day that the Bill was introduced. The amendment merely reflects what the Government have said their intentions are: in part 48 of the delegated powers memorandum, the Government state that the measure will not be used to reduce
“the entitlements currently held by refugees”
or persons with humanitarian protection.
The amendment seeks to reflect this commitment in the Bill: that people who have already been granted protection status before the Bill is introduced retain the rights, entitlements and protections that currently exist. That would include family reunion with no additional eligibility criteria and a five-way pathway to settlement, if interpreted correctly according to what the Government have said. That clarity is very much needed for refugees who are currently in the UK and need certainty of their situation so that they can focus on developing their life in this country—integrating, earning and all the things that will help their family life and their children.
I have a question about a particular part of new clause 35. I welcome the detail in schedule 1 and I appreciate having it at this stage so that we can scrutinise the Bill. However, part 7 of new clause 35 gives the Secretary of State the power to
“revoke a person’s protection status.”
That is literally all it says. While a whole section of the immigration rules covers the situations where a person’s refugee status and humanitarian protection can be revoked, on the face of this Bill, the Government are creating a very broad ability to revoke that status, which is currently unconstrained. Why are the Government not listing suitable uses of that power on the face of the Bill?
This issue is particularly relevant because in the last few weeks other parties—not represented on this Committee—have announced their desire to revoke the right to asylum and revoke refugee status for some who have already found protection in the UK. The Government rightly stood up for the right to asylum and stood against those proposals. It would be good to have that on the face of the Bill, so that we have better protections against the risk of the power being taken over by another party or future Home Secretary who would abuse it. I would like the Government to clarify that.
Finally, it would be useful to hear how the Minister believes the change in new clause 35 will simplify decision-making processes since we have heard in oral evidence that the convention grounds cannot be done away with. Merging them with what had previously been known as the humanitarian protection grounds is potentially complex and confusing for people. Will the Government clarify how people will be told on what grounds they have been granted protection, in order to make sure that the Bill is very clear?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I will speak to my amendments 51 to 54. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer and give more clarity and certainty on.
On amendment 51, part 3 gives the Home Secretary a very broad power to make regulations introducing core protection. The delegated powers memorandum says it is to bring the statute book in line with the new definition of protected status, but clause 21(3)(c) lets regulations confer rights and impose obligations on those claiming or holding protection, and clause 21(3)(e) lets them treat convention and humanitarian grants differently. In my view, that goes well beyond updating definitions. Could the Minister explain that?
If the powers are to deliver entitlements in restoring order and control statements, which is obviously the 30-month protection, 20-year route to settlement, no family reunion, new work and study route, then Parliament should see them during the passage of the Bill. Changing refugees’ entitlements matters for how they rebuild their lives and integrate, and for the wider points around the economy and social cohesion. That needs proper scrutiny, not a negative procedure SI.
In reference to amendments 51 and 52, if regulations will change entitlements and obligations, can the Minister set out what exactly those changes will be? If not now, will they be set out before the Bill leaves the Commons? How will those changes meet the desired outcomes and will there be further impact assessments to understand the implications of them?
Amendment 53 is about the five-year leave and settlement. Since March 2026, refugees have been granted 2.5 years instead of five. The Home Secretary insists on a minimum 20-year route to settlement, up from five. Amendment 53 would restore an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility for settlement after five years. Reviews every 30 months and a settlement route that feels out of reach makes it harder to focus on learning English, training and work. People invest in their future when they know that they have one here. The Refugee Council estimates there will be up to 1.1 million reviews in the first decade, at a cost of up to £725 million. That would add additional pressure to the Home Office, which cannot yet decide claims well the first time. The Government say that they were inspired by Denmark, but in some ways it is far more restrictive. Most of Europe grants around five years and then settlement, but Denmark allows settlement after eight years for restricted conditions.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Let me set out the test that we will apply to this part of the Bill. Protection should be there for people who genuinely need it, when they need it. When that need ends, they should go home. That is what the public expect, and it is what the Government say they want. The question is whether this part of the Bill delivers it.
First, to give them credit where it is due, the Government now propose to replace clause 21 with new clauses 35 and 36 and new schedule 1. Instead of leaving the whole framework to regulations, Ministers propose to put the definition into the Bill itself. That is better. Amendment 132 has not been selected so the question of retaining clause 21 will come through the stand part debate, but there is still a scrutiny problem. New clause 36 keeps a power to change primary legislation with no time limit. The linked Government amendment 134 makes those changes subject to affirmative approval, but other regulations would use the negative procedure. Why should powers to confer rights or impose obligations operate on that basis? What further change does the Minister already have in mind?
I support amendment 137, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Before any further leave is granted, it would require consideration of whether removal would still breach our obligations on the convention or humanitarian protection grounds. That means checking the continuing need at every renewal, not just in selected cases. Government new clause 35 would give the Home Secretary a power to revoke protection status, but a power to revoke is not a duty to review. Will the Minister carry the principle of amendment 137 into the replacement framework? When protection is no longer needed, how will departure follow?
That is why we cannot support amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. It would require an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility to apply for settlement after five years, but the passing of five years tells us nothing about whether protection is still needed. That need should determine the approach. Nor can we support amendment 54. It would allow partners, children and dependent adult children to apply to join someone with protection status without fees, a health surcharge, an income test or maintenance or accommodation requirements. Who pays when the sponsor cannot support or house the family? What assessment has been made of the numbers and the pressure on housing, schools and GP surgeries?
On amendment 75, how would children’s interests be considered under the replacement framework? Amendment 51 would challenge the power to confer rights and impose obligations, while amendment 52 would challenge a different provision for convention and humanitarian claims. What difference does the Minister intend? On amendment 74, would the commitment not to reduce existing entitlements still apply?
I support amendment 138, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Before the first regulations were put to Parliament, it would require the publication of draft regulations and a statement of the proposed immigration rules, covering the length of leave, reviews of protection and the qualifying period for settlement. Those details would tell us how this will actually work. Although the amendment was drafted against clause 21, the need for those answers does not disappear when the Government replace it. Will the Minister publish the equivalent material for the new framework before asking Parliament to approve its implementation?
What happens to existing grants, pending claims and live appeals? Will anyone have to reapply because the label has changed? What staff and resources will be needed to review protection properly without creating another backlog? We support protection for as long as it is needed. Amendments 137 and 138 ask Ministers to explain how they will check that need and show Parliament the rules. Putting definitions in the Bill is welcome, but we still need to know how the system will work.
Anna Turley
I really appreciate the contributions from all the hon. Members this afternoon. Before responding directly to the clauses and amendments that we have discussed so far, I hope the Committee will allow me to set out why this approach is being taken.
As part of the wider core protection reforms set out by the Home Secretary last year in the “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the UK’s asylum policy statement published in November 2025 set out the new approach to protection in the UK. That marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection towards protection that is granted for the duration of need, which we call “core protection”. Put simply, replacing the two categories of protection—refugee and humanitarian protection status—with one single form of protection status will simplify the asylum decision making process and prevent unnecessary and tenuous appeals.
It is important to reflect on how we got to where we are. Those two protection statuses are essentially a historical relic from separating those in danger on return to their countries of origin from those in need of protection for political or identity reasons. As time has evolved, the two statuses have become functionally identical, except in some small areas such as travel documents. That creates an administrative burden for the Home Office for no good reason. We are therefore proposing to merge those two statuses.
Clause 21 will reconcile those two statuses so that the system is administratively simpler for refugees and decision makers. In order to do that, we are also taking a limited power to deal with the existence of terms such as “refugee”, “refugee protection” and “humanitarian protection”, which exist throughout our extensive immigration and asylum statute book and will need replacing with a single term: “core protection”. Under the current system, those who qualify for refugee or humanitarian protection status are granted similar entitlements—30 months’ permission to stay and the same route to settlement. Where there are differences, such as in relation to travel documents, we are making changes to ensure that all those who are granted core protection are eligible.
One of the points raised in the debate was about whether we are more expansive than other European countries. That is absolutely right; as the Home Secretary set out in “Restoring Order and Control”, our offer to refugees is more expansive than that of other European countries. Once they are granted refugee status, the current system grants leave to remain for five years. At the end of that period, refugees can immediately apply for settlement, giving them an indefinite right to live in the UK. This application is fee-free and essentially automatic, being almost entirely absent of requirements.
When compared with that of some of our European neighbours, this approach to protection is generous. In Denmark—a country that has tightened its asylum system in recent years—residence permits are issued to refugees for just two years, and they are designed to be temporary. Settlement can typically be obtained only after eight years of residence and is subject to multiple conditions, including full-time employment, meeting an earnings threshold, language proficiency and active citizenship.
Clause 21 sets out what constitutes a protection claim and who will qualify for protection status. A person has protection status if they have been granted permission to stay in the UK because removing them would breach our obligations under the refugee convention, or if they would be at real risk of serious harm. The UK is proud to offer sanctuary to those in need, for as long as it is needed, in line with our international obligations. We believe that all those who face persecution for a specified reason, as contained in the 1951 convention, as well as those who fear torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection, and that this country should play its part.
This measure is part of simplifying the current system, which has two forms of protection status that grant similar entitlements, namely refugee status and humanitarian protection. Under the new system, individuals who qualify for protection will be granted core protection status. As such, this change will streamline asylum decision making and reduce unnecessary appeals.
Before I turn to the amendments themselves, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to Government new clauses 35 and 36 and new schedule 1. I will discuss them in detail in a moment, but it is the Government’s intention—quite unusually—that these new clauses will replace clause 21, as we have essentially updated it. I know that this is unusual, so I would just like to explain it to members of the Committee. Having included a limited power in the Bill upon its introduction, we now want to narrow that power with more detail, as we work through the technicalities of how this part will interact with what I know Members will agree is a very large volume of legislation on the statute book.
I thank the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 53 and 54 and amendment 74 respectively, and I will address some of the questions they raised before I go into their specifics. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that there was the potential here to reduce entitlement, but that is absolutely not the case. If anything, there will be a minor levelling-up of humanitarian entitlement when it comes to travel documents. So there will be no reducing of entitlement.
We do not think that the origin of the claim should matter for the grounds for protection. We believe that there should be consistency across the two, so the entitlement is therefore the same. We want to be clear that, in all the amendments we have made, there is to be absolutely no levelling-down. As we heard, the Home Secretary’s delegated powers memorandum itself was clear that the powers would not be used to reduce entitlement.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the best interests of children, which builds on a debate we had earlier today. Of course, their interests are absolutely the priority throughout this process. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 places a duty on the Home Office to ensure that its immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in the UK. The Home Office takes its section 55 duty seriously, and every child matters, as set out in our statutory guidance. We are committed to ensuring that we have regard to this duty in the development and implementation of new policy, including core protection, as well as when decision makers apply these policies to children within the UK.
The hon. Member asked about a sunset clause and why we have removed that in the existing powers. The key consequential amendments to primary legislation will be on the face of the Bill through new schedule 1. However, significant additional changes will still be needed for secondary legislation, which is why that was removed.
Siân Berry
I would like further clarity on why those grounds—the reasons for which revocation could be made—which the Minister read out very clearly, are not simply added to the Bill at this point to make the situation incredibly clear.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. The reason is that immigration rules are not normally put on the face of primary legislation. It would be unusual to do that on the face of the Bill. I can clarify that shortly with the hon. Lady, but that is my understanding of why this is not on the face of the Bill—because it is done through the usual route of immigration rules.
The hon. Lady asked what applicants will be told and how this will support those going through the process in simplifying their decision making. The decision-making process will be simplified in all decisions that would not currently be a grant of refugee status, because they will no longer refuse refugee status and then go on to separately consider serious harm. Instead, a single decision on risk on return will be made. Officials are already working with non-governmental organisations in the sector to identify the precise wording most appropriate in a new grant letter.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked what the 30-month renewal will involve. We are committed to ensuring that our policies are sustainable and do not place unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer, and this policy is no different. In terms of resources and processing, only those who do remain on core protection will have their protection needs regularly reviewed. Reviews will be targeted based on objective country information and any other new information that comes to light, allowing us to make the most efficient use of resources. We will continue to monitor staffing levels and will deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs, as we have done in the past. The approach to reviewing status will be efficient and targeted, and we will reassess where country conditions or personal circumstances change.
Tom Gordon
I understand the point the Minister is making about targeting resource efficiently, but can she elaborate on exactly what that looks like in practice? There are lots of nice words about efficiency, but until we know what that entails, it is quite hard to believe.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising that point. He will understand that this decision making is part of the core business for the Home Office. I can come back to him during the Committee with more specific detail on what that process will look like, but it is important to reassure him that we will continue to monitor our staffing levels and deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs.
Siân Berry
It is important to know whether the 30-month process will be more like a simple renewal—like me renewing my TV licence or something like that—or whether it will be a reinterrogation of the person seeking protection all over again? Will the onus be on the Government to say, for example, that a country has suddenly become safe, that there has been a new Government, that major changes have occurred and, therefore, that we will look more closely at a number of cases, but that in countries where the situation has remained the same, we will not be looking in depth? How simple the process will be is really bothering people. Having all their circumstances reinterrogated and having to prove themselves over and over again is something people have learned to expect from the Home Office. It is up to the Minister to reassure us on this point.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Lady raising that point. I was intending to come to it; she will be pleased to know that I still have quite a lot to get through in my speech. To reassure her, individuals will need to meet the relevant suitability requirements for ongoing permission to stay. If someone is convicted of a criminal offence that meets the relevant thresholds, they will be excluded from protection and will not be eligible for core protection. If there has been a significant and durable change in their country’s situation or a change in their personal circumstances, their ongoing need for protection will be reviewed. For anyone who has returned to the country of persecution or serious harm, or obtained a national passport, their circumstances will be reviewed. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady a degree of clarity, but I am happy to go back and clarify that in more detail during the Committee—I can see that it would mean a lot to both her and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
Amendments 53 and 54, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, would revert to the previous position of granting five years’ leave to remain to refugees and placing them on a five-year route to settlement, and would allow automatic entitlement to family reunion. In recent years, the number of people seeking protection has significantly increased, placing unprecedented pressure on housing, public services and communities across the UK. From 2004 to 2020, between 22,000 and 46,000 people were claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, there has been a huge increase since the second half of 2021, reaching a peak of 110,000 in the year ending September 2025. Although the numbers of people claiming asylum fell to 85,891 in the year ending June 2026, it still remains high compared with levels seen in the decade to 2021.
I know that many of our constituents have huge concerns about fairness, how the system operates and whether it supports those who truly need protection. That is why the Government published a new asylum policy statement in November last year that set out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum system. Core protection is one of the key elements of the asylum reforms. Under this new policy, protection will be granted for the duration of need and will be renewable where a person remains at risk on return. Greater entitlements, including a shorter period to settlement and a route to sponsor family members, will be accessed by demonstrating contribution to and integration into UK society. Settlement will no longer be automatic. Instead, there will be a 20-year route to permanent residency, crucially with the ability to reduce that period by switching into the protection work and study route to ensure long-term commitment, contribution and integration.
As a first step towards that, the Government changed immigration laws on 5 March 2026. Any adult or accompanied child who claims asylum from 2 March 2026 onwards and qualifies for a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection will be granted leave for 30 months. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home. The safe return review will consider whether there has been a fundamental and durable change in their country of origin.
We recognise that, when a country situation changes, not everyone will be safe. Of course, as occurs now, individual circumstances will be taken into account, and each case will be assessed on its own merits. The overthrow of one political party in favour of another might only be transitory. The changes must be such that the reasons for becoming a refugee have ceased to exist and there are no other reasons for an individual to fear returning to their country.
Siân Berry
For clarity, will the onus be on the Government to prove the change, or will it be like reapplying from scratch each time? Again, my casework shows that we are more used to the Home Office asking for chapter and verse from the applicant each time. If the Minister is prepared to promise that it will be for the Government to prove changes, that would mean a lot to many people listening.
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next paragraph. To clarify for her, once the individual acquires protection status, the burden of proof is on the Home Office to demonstrate that protection is no longer required. It will be us who will demonstrate that; it will not be for the claimant to make another asylum claim, unless there are new grounds that have not been raised before. Any decision to revoke protection status will continue to have a right of appeal. As always, we will continue to uphold the fundamental principle that we will not return anyone to a country where they are at risk.
Refugees with a continuing protection need will have to wait 20 years for settlement unless they switch to protection work and study as part of the core protection model. A new, bespoke work and study route will allow access to family reunion and settlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. That will enable refugees to earn down the length of time before they can settle in the UK, and demonstrate that they are contributing to the UK and can support their family before they may bring their partner and children over. Further details will be set out in future immigration rule changes. This route will not include a safe return review.
Tom Gordon
I welcome the fact that the Minister says details will be set out in future immigration regulation, but there is no clarity in the Bill for people now. I asked her a number of questions about eligibility, whether the family would move on to that route together and what that actually looks like. Can she say anything about that at this stage?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the provision we are debating gives power to the Secretary of State to make changes to immigration rules. We will make changes to the immigration rules through the usual process, so he will have the opportunity to debate them when they come before the House for affirmative resolution, but this debate is about the power. I am sure that debate will continue in the weeks and months ahead, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman on it.
For the people who claim asylum and are granted protection in the UK, our new regime providing support for refugees will be entirely in accordance with our international obligations, but it does not exceed them. These are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world and, crucially, that public consent for having an asylum system at all remains. Genuine refugees will receive the protection they need. We therefore oppose the amendments.
Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, set out to limit the power to make regulations about protection status and claims. Due to the drafting of clause 21(3), the amendments would not prevent the Home Secretary from making such regulations about protection status and claims because the power in clause 21(1) is a broad one. However, without this explicit provision, such regulations would be more vulnerable to challenge on grounds that they were ultra vires. Government new clauses 35 and 36 will replace clause 21. They aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21. They also give the Secretary of State the power to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.
The Government new clauses ensure that the key consequential amendments to primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill. However, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation require simplification following the introduction of the single concept of protection. The narrow power here is considered the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book in line with that change. Regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny because any legal challenges can be debated and authorised by Parliament.
Amendments 74 and 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, also seek to limit the power by preventing regulations from restricting the rights and entitlements available to those with protection status and by requiring the Home Secretary to take into account the best interests of children when making regulations. The Government have tabled their own amendments to replace clause 21 and define the single concept of protection on the face of the Bill. The purpose of the single concept of protection is to create a single definition of protection claim and a single form of protection status. It will replace and amalgamate the two separate forms of protection: refugee status and humanitarian protection.
Anyone at risk of persecution or serious harm due to third-party actors on return to their home country will be granted protection status and all the associated entitlements. We recognise that all those who face persecution for a specific reason in the 1951 convention, as well as those who are at risk of torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and the same entitlements. To the extent that we retain a power to make amendments, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation require simplification following the change. The power is the simplest and most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book in line with that change. Regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
As I have mentioned, the Government have already committed in the delegated powers memorandum that the power will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees, and the Home Secretary is already under a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard the welfare of children in the UK under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Government consider that there are ample safeguards on the exercise of the power, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary.
Amendments 137 and 138, taken together, set out to add additional requirements to clarify the powers in clause 21. In order to respond, it may be helpful to set out the purpose of clause 21 and the Government amendments I am introducing at this stage. The Government are introducing amendments to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21. They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 disagreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause 7 stand part.
New clause 6—Airport drop-off charges: duty to publish proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.
(2) The cap contained in the proposals published under subsection (1) must be £5.
(3) In this section, ‘drop-off charge’ means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a £5 airport drop-off cap at UK airports.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I hope Members will agree that a planned and thorough review delivered within 12 months is preferable to a report that cannot engage substantively with the issues at hand but is delivered within six.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind and consider the impact on residents near airports in my constituency who are affected by airport drop-off charges? They also have hire vehicles that create a bit of a nuisance to public spaces, green spaces and gardens across my constituency.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, both those affected by drop-off charges and those—he has spoken to me about this—who live in Prestwick, Ponteland and Woolsington who are particularly affected by taxi drivers not being able to use the airport in the way they want to and who end up impacting local communities. I raised that with local residents when I did a series of roundtables at Heathrow in relation to expansion. We need to manage all those impacts very carefully. People do not deserve to have disruption and nuisance on their doorstep because we are not getting the systems functioning in the way that they need to.
Government amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name, make a related change to the commencement provisions of the Bill. As currently drafted, the review duty would come into force two months after Royal Assent; however, as the period for completing the review is measured from Royal Assent, it is appropriate that the duty itself also commences at that point, which the amendments provide for. They are technical and consequential amendments that simply ensure that the Bill is tidied and operates as intended, with the commencement provisions aligning with the revised review timetable.
Clause 7, as we have discussed, requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I do not have much to add to the remarks I made when discussing Government amendment 1, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me quickly reiterate that we recognise the considerable strength of feeling that exists on this issue among passengers and parliamentarians.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
My constituents have also raised issues around airport drop-off charges at Bournemouth airport, which have gone up to £8 this year. There are no public transport options to get to Bournemouth airport, so I hope that the Minister and the Government will take into account alternative routes to get to airports when looking at this issue in the consultation.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the functions of airport drop-off charges, as presently constituted, is to facilitate mode share changes at airports and to encourage airport users to take public transport where possible, but it is true that across the airports in the United Kingdom there is not consistent public transport availability. Those questions around provision and whether free drop-off spaces are provided, and the transparency with which they can be accessed, is of major importance. I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
In North Somerset, we have Bristol airport, which I was very glad to welcome the Minister to visit, but we have exactly the same transport deficit for a very busy airport without a mass transit system. Will the Minister talk about how it might be possible to have conversations about wider mass transit systems and their integration with airports?
Keir Mather
It was a pleasure to visit Bristol airport to see its impressive and ambitious plans to facilitate new international routes and to modernise its terminals. It wants more people to use the airport, so it is incumbent on us all to think about how we can best facilitate that. With the new Prime Minister’s increased focus on pushing power out into every local community in the United Kingdom, local mayors and local authorities will also have an enormous role to play in ensuring that we have the right public transport connectivity to our airports so that more people can benefit from being able to travel cheaply and comfortably to airports in their local areas.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Similarly to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, we have serious issues at Newquay airport about connectivity, so I welcome the suggestion on local transport connectivity that promoting alternative modalities will be part of the review, but to what extent will the Minister join up that review with the other work he is doing more broadly to support smaller regional airports through, for example, the review of the public service obligation, which is so necessary for airports like Newquay to be able to bid in a more flexible way?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that PSOs serve as a lifeline for many regional airports, and provide important economic and business connectivity to the nation’s capital from many regions of the United Kingdom, including his own, which is serving as a catalyst for regional economic growth. We of course need to think about the intersection of these questions, and how we can work with local mayors to create robust public transport systems that can get people to the places they want to go, to facilitate economic growth across the entire United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes the point well.
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 6, which seeks to require the Government to publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges within six months of Royal Assent, and to specify that the cap must be £5. The Government have committed to reviewing the impact on airport users within 12 months of Royal Assent. The new clause would cut across that proposal by requiring the Government to bring forward proposals for a specific £5 cap before the review had completed, effectively predetermining the outcome before evidence had been adequately considered. For those reasons, I cannot support the new clause and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On new clause 6, I note the Minister’s comments about the study to understand the level of public transport provision and charges at UK airports, which we obviously welcome. It is worth reflecting on the comments from a number of Government Members that a charge to encourage passengers to use public transport to access an airport, to reduce emissions, congestion and the impact on airport communities, is unfair when a public transport option does not exist for that airport. It is contradictory and confusing, and it undermines the case and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good but the impacts of aviation travel—be they emissions, disruption for nearby communities, or noise—must be mitigated and addressed.
As part of the review, I encourage the Minister and his officials, and those who are undertaking the study, to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision to the airports in question. I believe we will push new clause 6 to a vote, primarily to make the point that a particular charge level cap is appropriate, but I implore the Minister to look into that nuance. It is absolutely right that we encourage modal share and push passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport; however, where airports use a charge to increase their revenue that conflicts with the goals at alternative airports, where it is levied entirely to manage ground transportation demand and the impact on local residents.
Airport charges, it is worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership that means that this has become an additional fee that, as in the two examples given by Government Members, is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. There is an argument that suggests using public hire vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on roadways because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty, or parking, that vehicle is then available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location. It should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types—public hire taxis, for example. It is not that we are against the principle; there just needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured.
Finally, as stated in the new clause, we believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places. We have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure at airports, particularly those outside London, where there is lacking provision at present. Hopefully the Government are able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. My constituency is the home of East Midlands airport, where just a few weeks ago there was an increase for rapid drop off from £5 for 15 minutes to £8 for 10 minutes. One of the briefings that we received on the Bill identified an interesting rationale for the charges, and I am sure that will come out in the review.
I have some reflections on choice and fairness. When parking or getting a loved one to drop someone off there are a number of variables. In my constituency, just 9% of the public travel to East Midlands airport using public transport because the options are just not available. At East Midlands Parkway, the closest train station, passengers cannot get a public bus; instead there is a demand-responsive transport option. There is a free one-hour car park and the airport claims that people can get a free shuttle bus—which they can until early November, after which they will have to walk in the dark. I did that without any luggage and it took me about 14 minutes and I was quite speedy. I can imagine how inconvenient that would be for individuals who do not have the ability to pay.
The ability to pay at the point of use and simply forgetting to pay is also very much a part of my casework. When someone has dropped off a loved one at the rapid drop off, they are often doing so at unusual hours—early in the morning or late at night. By the time they get home, they have simply forgotten to pay. I have been asking the airport that a pay terminal be installed inside the airport for a person being dropped off and with the ability to pay, but it simply continues to refuse to do that. For me, it is about choice and fairness, and there does not seem to be much choice or much fairness there. The fear is that it is using the £100 penalty as a way of making up the cost.
There is also the question of whether the cost is proportionate. It is clearly too expensive. What is really frustrating is that Manchester Airports Group also operates Stansted and, as a direct comparison, 50% of people travelling to Stansted use public transport. We are talking about choice and fairness. People there can choose to use other methods, but at East Midlands airport that is simply not the case.
The other additional benefit of Stansted is that people who live within a 10-mile radius get an 85% discount on the rapid drop-off fee. There is no such discount at East Midlands airport—an airport with such poor transport links that only 9% can choose public transport as an option. Not to pre-empt the consultation, but I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can start making sure that rapid drop off and the fairness to use it is equated with the use of public transport in the locality.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have finally decided to back our amendment and that Ministers now concur with our excellent Conservative colleagues in the other place that a review of airport drop-off charges is desperately needed. I particularly welcome the Government’s slight change to the timelines, giving Ministers even more time to pore over this issue and examine precisely why these charges are soaring.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Lady has always struck me as a master of the English language. I am sure she will therefore understand that the word “cap” does not refer to a target; it is an upper limit. There is no reason why it should induce an increase among those airports that do not feel the need for one, because those airports will have reached that decision for their own particular market. If she does believe that limits are targets, perhaps her party will withdraw its frequent opposition to such measures as 20 mph speed limits, because by that argument people only ever drive—or go—up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless are well. I of course do not actually think that; I am just suggesting that is how one could logically extend her argument, if we are to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets, or incentives to hit them.
Alison Griffiths
Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .
Keir Mather
I will begin by responding to the shadow Minister. I am no physicist, but I know that a plane must fly on both its left and its right wing. I am very pleased therefore to see the consensus across the room today on the principle of a review of airport drop-off changes.
On a serious note, Members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why a review has been deemed necessary by the Government. That is to ensure that when consumers travel through our airports and use the drop-off facilities, they can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.
The shadow Minister was right to point to the special impact that drop-off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It is of course worth noting that airports provide bespoke drop-off locations for people with disabilities, but that brings us to another question about signage and access to those spaces. Those points were very well made, and those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.
Speaking to new clause 6, I have a particular question about freezing a cap in aspic, at around £5. Is it proportionate and is it enough? There was a point about disparity around the country, which is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I identify with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about ensuring fairness and compliance with mode shift targets where public transport access to airports is poor. It is also worth reflecting on the shadow Minister’s contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports need management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts directly on how those drop-off systems work. That is worthy of consideration.
Though we can have conversations about fairness, transparency and choice, drop-off charges are often used by airports to make very necessary improvements to their facilities and access. That is also worthy of consideration. The shadow Minister perhaps did not point to the work we have done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernisation, which helps the airport sector to grow. That being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore we have to be cognisant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop-off charges and think of them in the round when we consider how best to support the sector.
On that basis, there have been some great contributions by both Government and Opposition MPs speaking to the constituency impact of drop-off charges. The review will be designed to address some of those questions. I do have concerns about new clause 6, which mean that I cannot support it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Directions about implementation
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—
(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,
(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and
(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Amendment 27 is intended to make sure that expansions of airports and changes to aviation and flight paths are done with, rather than to, communities, and that their significant environmental impact is taken into account. At this point, there would usually be chuntering from the Government Benches about we Liberal Democrats being nimbys. However, the amendment is intended to counter precisely such sentiments, which often originate from the feeling that major decisions on infrastructure and transport are taken apart from, and done to, the communities that are most affected.
The amendment is in part about communities directly affected by noise and air pollution from airports, including those in the densely populated area around Heathrow, as well as around Gatwick, Luton and many other airports. However, the environmental impact of aviation affects us all. Despite the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, there remains a long way to go before the aviation industry has a credible plan for decarbonisation. The amendment would make sure that where directions are issued, an assessment is made of their impact, so that people have the opportunity to see the decision making and make their voices heard. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Sadik Al-Hassan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Before entering this House, I spent nearly two decades as a pharmacist. That gives a person a particular view of the world, as staying up to date with technology, processes and drugs is crucial to saving lives, and that is, in part, why I support the Bill, including clause 8. Surely, if it is good enough for pharmacy, staying up to date, with modern rules, plans and powers, is good enough for flying.
Clause 8 will help with a problem that my North Somerset constituency, which is home to Bristol airport, knows only too well. With around 12 million passengers using the airport and a potential expansion on the horizon, we must reform and bring up to date the 1950s framework that governs our airspace. My constituents stand to gain the most from that, including less noise overhead, greater efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions and fewer delays.
As with all things, there is a cost to doing nothing. Without reform, flight delays are expected to rise by 200% by 2040. We must also do all we can to help to combat climate change. The establishment of the UK Airspace Design Service will deliver the resilience and efficiency that our airspace needs. The service has begun its work in London, but will the Minister consider Bristol as a priority for the next phase? North Somerset residents have waited long enough for an airspace that works for them.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause 8. On amendment 27, the Opposition of course believe that local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them—that is an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and, intrinsically, there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations.
I have concerns, however, about the additional requirements that the amendment would impose. The clause addresses the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. I question whether it is sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to implement those changes. Our aim ought to be to reduce the merry-go-round of regulation that impairs growth and investment; after all, modernising our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should do is introduce further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have already been through the appropriate approval process.
Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind the amendment, I confess that I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain in any vote on the amendment.
Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace, and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.
Olly Glover
I have heard the debate; perhaps we need to have a whip-round to buy the shadow Minister a house underneath the flightpath and see if her view would remain the same then. I would like to press amendment 27 to a Division.
Keir Mather
The Committee will be familiar with the Government’s position in relation to amendment 27 and I do not seek to disguise the fact that it remains unchanged. The amendment addresses safeguards that, in our view, are already firmly imbedded in the airspace change process. Environmental assessment and meaningful consultation are, and will remain, fundamental to that process. Nothing in the Bill removes, bypasses or weakens the requirements to consult thoroughly or to assess noise and wider environmental impacts robustly.
Clause 8 supports the Government’s objectives of delivering airspace modernisation and ensuring that approved airspace changes can be implemented efficiently. The clause extends the Secretary of State’s existing powers to direct relevant parties to prepare, develop or review airspace change proposals.
Clause 8 adds a power to direct the implementation of airspace change proposals, once they have been approved by the CAA. That reflects the practical reality that delivering airspace modernisation requires action from a number of different organisations. While we expect industry to work collaboratively to implement approved changes, there is a risk that a single party could delay or frustrate delivery. The new power provides a proportionate last-resort mechanism to ensure that approved airspace changes are implemented. That is particularly important as the UK Airspace Design Service has begun work redesigning the complex airspace over London and the south-east. Modernising our airspace will help maintain high safety standards, improve efficiency and resilience across the network, and support reductions in emissions and noise.
Importantly, clause 8 retains the existing statutory safeguards. It only applies to an airspace change that has been through the CAA’s robust regulatory process—including consultation of those affected by it—and has then been approved by the CAA. Before issuing a direction, the Secretary of State must consult the party being directed, which also has a right of appeal. The clause therefore strengthens the framework for delivering approved airspace changes while preserving appropriate protections and oversight.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
Clause 10 stand part.
Keir Mather
Clause 9 supports the reforms to the charging for air services contained in clause 10. Clause 10 allows air service charges to be imposed on a broader range of persons than under the current framework. Clause 9 therefore makes corresponding changes to the licence modifications process to ensure that existing safeguards remain effective and apply equally to all relevant parties. The clause requires the Secretary of State or the CAA to identify and consult anyone who would be materially affected by a proposed licence modification. It also introduces schedule 2, which makes additional corresponding changes to the air services licencing regime and the appeal process.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I support updating the framework for funding air navigation services. Will the Minister explain how the changes will ensure that costs are shared fairly among those who benefit, with proper scrutiny on charges and a clear expectation that the money supports a reliable service?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to say that where there is a broadening of who is charged, there must be a broadening of the principles that should underly a fair and transparent process by which those charges take place, and that any decisions in relation to it should be made through the lens of who benefits. I will turn to some of that later in my remarks. Together, these changes will ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve while maintaining the established rights of stakeholders affected by licensing conditions.
Schedule 2 will update the appeals framework for changes to air services licences to reflect the broader charging regime introduced by clause 10. As the Bill broadens the categories of persons who may be liable for charges for air services, the schedule will ensure that appeal rights continue to apply appropriately to those affected by licence modifications and that those affected are notified of the stages of the appeal process, providing the transparency and fairness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston refers. The schedule will extend appeal rights to reflect the wider range of stakeholders who may be affected by regulatory decisions, and I commend it to the Committee.
Finally, clause 10 will update the charging framework for air services to ensure that it remains fit for the future. Existing legislation allows charges to be imposed only on operators and owners of aircraft. This clause will broaden the framework so that charges may be imposed on a wider range of persons in the future. Anyone charged must still be a user or beneficiary of a service and must be consulted before charges are set. That will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments in aviation and enable charges to be imposed efficiently on new users of licensed air services, such as providers of services to uncrewed aircraft, where appropriate.
While the Government move forward very purposefully on things such as the future of flight industry group, and as we focus on beyond visual line of sight drone operations and electric vehicle take-off and landing, those benefits will be accrued. It is right that the charging regime is adapted to focus on it, but those two things must work in tandem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston encourages me to consider. This will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments.
The clause will also make consequential amendments to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Transport Act 2000 and the appeal process operate consistently following these changes. Overall, this will provide greater flexibility to ensure that the costs of providing air services can continue to be recovered fairly as the management and use of airspace evolves, including with the emergence of new users such as drones.
Alison Griffiths
I will briefly address clauses 9 and 10 and schedule 2. Clause 9 and schedule 2 will update the licensing arrangements for air traffic services, including who should be consulted when licence conditions are changed and who should have the right to appeal. We support those provisions.
I have concerns, however, about the drafting of clause 10. As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out in the other place, the clause says that a person may be charged where a service is
“available for their use or benefit”,
while also saying that
“it is immaterial whether…the services…could be used by them.”
How can a service be available for someone’s use if it could not be used by them? The Government amended part of the provision in the other place, but that basic question remains unanswered. The Minister must explain clearly who may be charged under this clause and how the Government will ensure that the new arrangements do not lead to unfair or disproportionate charges, particularly for general aviation. Subject to the Minister’s response, we will not oppose clause 10, but we do expect that ambiguity to be properly addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Allocation of slots and co-ordination and facilitation of schedules
Alison Griffiths
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 11, page 11, line 12, leave out “other than excluded regulations,”.
This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under new section 34A of the Airports Act 1986, including temporary regulations modifying or disapplying slot usage requirements, are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 11, page 11, leave out lines 16 to 19.
This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under new section 34A of the Airports Act 1986, including temporary regulations modifying or disapplying slot usage requirements, are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
Alison Griffiths
These amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The amendments would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus preserving scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in this Bill, that is an entirely reasonable safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be?
Regulations under the clause will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle. I hope that the Government can recognise today the importance of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job.
Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airport slot allocation regime. We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly in genuine emergencies, but these powers must be exercised carefully and must not undermine the independence of the slot allocation process. That is precisely why the parliamentary scrutiny provided by amendments 12 and 13 is so important.
Keir Mather
With your indulgence, Chair, may I just very briefly respond to a comment that the Shadow Minister made?
Keir Mather
I appreciate it, Ms McVey. To the shadow Minister’s point about materiality and the effectiveness of use, it is my understanding that this provision was changed in the Lords to ensure that those who can be charged is restricted only to those who use or benefit from the services that are outlined in the charging regime. This balances the necessary flexibility for the future with safeguarding the internationally established user pays principle. However, I will consult with my officials after our proceedings today and if there is anything remaining that still needs to be clarified, I will put it to the shadow Minister in writing or update her at the start of the next Committee session, if that is to her liking.
I thank the shadow Minister for giving the Committee the opportunity to consider the appropriate level of scrutiny for regulations relating to airport slots. The Government’s position remains that the approach in the Bill is both proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. The power is limited to exceptional circumstances where there is either a significant threat to public health or another substantial reason, and can be used only to make temporary changes to slot usage requirements. Applying the affirmative procedure in every case would reduce the Government’s ability to respond quickly and decisively to major disruption. Experience during the pandemic and this past summer has shown that timely intervention can be critical to protecting the operation and resilience of the aviation sector. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment.
Clause 11 ensures that the Government can continue to maintain and update the UK’s airport slot framework now that temporary powers put in place following EU exit have expired. Airport slots are a vital mechanism for managing access to capacity-constrained airports. They help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is allocated in a fair, transparent and efficient way, supporting both connectivity and competition.
Alison Griffiths
I hear the Minister’s remarks. I fear that we will not agree on the important need for affirmative parliamentary scrutiny.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alison Griffiths
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 12, page 12, line 7, leave out
“CAA may by rules (to be known as ‘CAA rules’)”
and insert
“Secretary of State may by regulations”.
This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 12, page 13, line 14, at end insert—
“(7A) Before making regulations under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out the principles underlying the exceptions to the CAA’s power to make CAA rules.
(7B) The statement under subsection (7A) must explain how those principles apply to the provision, matters or purposes specified in the regulations.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the principles underlying the exceptions to the CAA’s delegated rule-making power, in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Amendment 19, in clause 12, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) The consultation required by subsection (1) must be carried out on a draft version of the proposed rules.
(1B) In deciding which persons to consult under subsection (1)(b), the CAA must, in particular, consider whether to consult—
(a) persons likely to be affected by the proposed rules, and
(b) bodies appearing to the CAA to represent the interests of such persons.”.
This amendment would require the CAA to consult on proposed CAA rules in draft and to consider consulting affected persons and bodies representing their interests.
Amendment 20, in clause 12, page 13, lines 34 to 36, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would require a consultation under section 61B(1) where a provision in the proposed rules was deemed to sufficiently minor by the CAA.
Amendment 21, in clause 12, page 13, line 34, leave out “the CAA thinks” and insert
“the Secretary of State and the CAA agree”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to agree that a provision was sufficiently minor before that fast-track procedure was applied.
Amendment 22, in clause 12, page 15, line 40, after “rules,” insert
“including the provision of clear signposting to related requirements contained in Air Navigation Orders and other legislation,”
This amendment would make clear that guidance about the publication of CAA rules may include provision for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation.
Amendment 16, in clause 12, page 16, leave out lines 11 and 12.
This amendment would prevent the CAA from having a veto over the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives document.
Amendment 23, in clause 12, page 16, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
“(1) The CAA must publish and maintain on its website an up-to-date consolidated version of the whole of the text of CAA rules.
(1A) The CAA may prepare and publish up-to-date consolidated versions of any part of the text of CAA rules.”.
This amendment would require the CAA to maintain and publish on its website an up-to-date consolidated version of the complete CAA rules, with the ability to publish consolidated extracts.
Amendment 17, in clause 12, page 17, leave out lines 11 to 21.
This amendment deletes a Henry VIII provision.
Clause stand part.
Alison Griffiths
The Secretary of State should remain at the heart of aviation regulation, providing clear direction and ensuring that the CAA’s regulatory framework supports growth, competitiveness and investment. Ministers should be setting that direction and driving the CAA towards those objectives rather than handing them over extensive rule-making powers with insufficient democratic accountability. That is why we have tabled amendment 14, to ensure that the Government retain the ability to set that direction rather than sitting on the sidelines as a passive bystander.
Amendment 15 is designed to provide clarity, explanation and to ensure that a smooth and transparent process is followed as a matter of course. It follows directly from the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raised concerns about the extent of the rule-making powers being handed to the CAA. We are simply asking the Government to explain the principles governing which powers should remain with Ministers and which should be exercised by the regulator. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. Indeed, when this was debated in the other place, the Minister acknowledged the concerns and promised to consider them carefully. What became of those assurances? Why has the Government not seen fit to include this perfectly sensible safeguard in the Bill?
I turn next to amendment 19, which I am inclined to support. It is entirely sensible those that affected by changes to aviation rules should have a proper opportunity to contribute to the process. That includes our airports, airlines and the wider aviation industry, which need clarity and certainty about the regulatory framework in which they operate. Giving businesses greater access to the process, and the opportunity to comment on draft rules before they are introduced, can only help them to plan ahead, make investment decisions, and ultimately grow and succeed. We want a regulatory framework that supports a thriving aviation sector, and proper consultation with those who actually have to operate under those rules is an important part of achieving that.
On amendment 20, I think the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is rather hedging his bets, having tabled two amendments seeking to address the same issue in slightly different ways. We certainly agree with the principle that the CAA should not be able to determine entirely for itself when consultation is unnecessary. However, we think amendment 21 provides a more sensible approach by ensuring that the Secretary of State also has a say in that decision.
We support amendment 21, which is a very reasonable measure. The CAA should not be able to operate entirely off its own steam, deciding for itself when proposed rule changes are sufficiently minor to dispense with the normal consultation process. Surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have a role in that decision? Importantly, this amendment does not undermine the ambition of the clause to provide a faster, more responsive rule-making process. The fast track procedure would remain available. The amendment would simply require Ministers and the CAA to agree that a proposed change is sufficiently minor to justify using that procedure. That is hardly an onerous requirement. It simply provides an additional safeguard, ensures proper ministerial oversight and helps prevent the CAA from becoming a law unto itself.
Amendment 22 is also perfectly sensible. Signposting provides clarity and I suspect it would be particularly useful for smaller aviation businesses, which may not have the resources to navigate multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory guidance. I know that the shadow Secretary of State has received representations from those involved in gliding and general aviation, and it is important that we consider the needs of those smaller operators alongside the major airlines and airports. Anything that makes the regulatory framework easier to understand and navigate is surely a good thing. This amendment would help to ensure that the guidance accompanying the CAA’s new rulebook properly signposts related requirements elsewhere in aviation legislation. Ease, clarity and transparency are principles that we are always inclined to support, and for those reasons we will press the amendment to a vote.
I turn to amendment 16, which stands in my name. One of our key concerns throughout consideration of the Bill has been the extent to which the CAA is being given increasingly unfettered powers, with insufficient accountability to Ministers and to Parliament. It should always be the case that Government set the direction of aviation policy, with the CAA responsible for delivering within that framework. I struggle to understand why the regulator should have the final say over the priorities and objectives set by the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore seeks to tighten that relationship considerably, ensuring that Ministers retain the authority to set the direction and can be held accountable to Parliament for the decisions they make.
Amendment 23 is also very sensible. Providing greater clarity on how the CAA’s rules interact with existing legislation will be particularly helpful for airlines, airports and the wider aviation sector. Businesses need to understand the regulatory framework in which they operate, and anything that makes that framework clearer and easier to navigate should be welcomed. It appears to be a straightforward, practical measure that will help aviation businesses to comply with their obligations, and we are therefore happy to support it.
Finally, I turn to amendment 17, which stands in my name. It seeks to delete a Henry VIII provision from clause 12. We have consistently raised concerns throughout the Bill’s passage about the extent to which powers are being transferred away from Parliament, and this provision is another such example. The Government are giving the CAA substantial new rule-making powers, while also giving Ministers the ability to amend or repeal primary legislation through secondary legislation to facilitate those rules.
I appreciate that the Minister in the other place argued that that was necessary to avoid gaps in legislation and to ensure a smooth transition. However, surely a little admin inconvenience cannot be an excuse for hollowing out parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Acts of Parliament should be amended through parliamentary process, and we should be extremely cautious about granting Ministers powers to bypass those processes. For those reasons, the Opposition have tabled amendment 17 and will press it to a vote.
I will conclude by speaking briefly to clause 12 itself. We recognise the need for aviation rules to be updated efficiently, and to keep pace with changing international standards. However, clause 12 transfers substantial rule-making powers to the CAA, and those powers must be accompanied by proper ministerial accountability and parliamentary oversight. That is why the safeguards contained in our amendments are so important.
Keir Mather
It feels like we are back in the Railways Bill with such a chunky group of amendments to work through—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] My Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, would be very pleased to be back in the Railways Bill, given his penchant for that particular mode.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling her amendments. The Committee will recognise that amendment 14, the lead amendment, returns to an issue considered during the Bill’s passage in the other place: whether aviation safety rules should ultimately be made by the Secretary of State rather than the CAA. The Government’s position on this matter remains clear. The amendment would prevent the delegation of technical rule making to the CAA, which is a central purpose of the Bill.
Luke Taylor
Amendments 21 and 20 are alternative approaches to a safeguard, as the shadow Minister observed. Our preferred amendment is 21 because it gives the oversight back to the Secretary of State to confirm that that minor classification is appropriate. We prefer amendment 21 and will hopefully persuade the Government to accept it, in which case amendment 20 will be superseded.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. On that basis, I will turn to a substantive challenge that we have with amendment 21. The decision about whether a proposed rule change is sufficiently minor to justify the use of the fast-track procedure is, we believe, primarily a technical regulatory judgment. The CAA is the independent aviation safety regulator and is therefore best placed to assess the significance of proposed changes within the wider aviation safety framework. We feel that requiring ministerial agreement for every minor technical amendment risks introducing additional administrative steps that could delay routine updates without materially improving scrutiny or outcomes.
Luke Taylor
It is worth clearly defining the CAA’s role in delivering safety and process improvements. Obviously, it is down to the Minister and the Government to drive the direction they want to take. Is there a risk that the regulator, which is operating within the status quo, may consider something minor without being able to consider the direction the Government might want to take—for example, in prioritising the impact on drone operators, new technologies and innovation? Should it not therefore be for the Minister to agree whether a particular innovation or approach can be fast-tracked, or whether it requires full consultation? I think it just gives the Government and the Minister himself more opportunity to direct, which is why this would seem to be a logical process.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. He also notes that, as our aviation sector evolves—especially in relation to drone and beyond visual line of sight technology—we may want a more hands-on approach to determining what constitutes significant change. When a lot of these technologies first appear, it might seem as though they will not reach fruition and maturity for some time, and then they quickly become very consequential to how our airspace develops. Ministers are ultimately responsible for setting the CAA’s strategic priorities. The Secretary of State of course has the power to direct the CAA and can reserve particular functions. On that basis, the amendments are not necessary at present, given the suite of ministerial powers available when those more nuanced circumstances might arise. However, I will happily pick that conversation up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee to consider it further.
Amendment 22 seeks to make it explicit that guidance on the publication of CAA rules may provide for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation. I understand the intention behind the amendment. It is important that those who are subject to aviation safety requirements can understand how CAA rules interact with requirements elsewhere in the legislative framework. However, I feel that the amendment is unnecessary. Proposed new section 61G already gives the Secretary of State the ability to issue guidance about the publication of CAA rules.
In my view, it is unnecessary to be more specific, but perhaps we ought to have a conversation about what more routine processes we can build in to make sure that guidance is provided in a more timely way, so that the smaller operators the shadow Minister spoke of have access to the guidance they need. As the provision stands, the guidance that can be issued can address, should Ministers choose, how rules are presented and published, including appropriate signposting to related legislative requirements, without prescribing that particular approach in the Bill. We therefore consider that those matters are better addressed in that flexible way, through the guidance under proposed new section 61G.
Amendment 16, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, returns to the question of whether the CAA should have to agree the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives. The Government’s position on that matter remains clear. The CAA is the UK’s independent aviation safety regulator, and its technical experts will be responsible for turning the priorities issued by the Secretary of State into a deliverable rule-making programme. Requiring its agreement ensures that the programme is feasible, appropriately targeted and compatible with its statutory responsibilities.
In our view, removing that safeguard would not improve accountability. Instead, it could require the CAA to pursue priorities it considers undeliverable or inconsistent with its responsibilities, undermining both its independence and the effective operation of the new framework. The requirement for its agreement does not, however, give the CAA a veto over Government policy. The Secretary of State has the power to direct the CAA in its rule making, and retains powers to reserve matters from the CAA’s rule-making functions and to legislate directly where appropriate. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment would remove the necessary safeguards without necessarily strengthening ministerial authority. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister not to press it.
Amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, would require the CAA to maintain on its website an up-to-date and consolidated version of the whole text of the CAA rules. I agree that aviation rules must be clear and accessible—all CAA rules will be published and remain available and accessible—but the question is whether the CAA should be under a legal duty to keep the entire rulebook continuously consolidated. We do not consider such a duty to be necessary.
The CAA rulebook will contain many thousands of provisions, and it is important for the authority to have flexibility in how it develops, prepares and maintains a consolidated version of the rules, which it then publishes. If the CAA is required to consolidate fully the rulebook after every change, no matter how minor, it would be required to ensure that the whole consolidated rulebook is updated even when a change affects only a small number of provisions. That would also prevent, for example, the CAA from undertaking consolidation exercises at more appropriate and proportionate intervals than in every instance that would be required under the proposed provisions. That could impose disproportionate cost and delay, frustrating the Bill’s purpose of enabling the CAA to maintain a more agile rule-making framework.
I promise, Ms McVey, that I am making good progress through my response to this group of amendments. Amendment 17 returns to the provision that enables consequential amendments to be made in connection with CAA rules. In our view, the need for that power is practical and unavoidable. As responsibility for safety rule making moves to the CAA, the Government must be able to make facilitating regulations and update related legislation so that the statute book remains coherent and the new framework can operate as intended. Without that, the provisions may become unworkable and result in significant legal uncertainty.
The power is not broad or unconstrained; it may be used only to make the secondary legislation needed to facilitate or give effect to the CAA’s rule-making function. Such powers are a well-established feature of primary legislation where necessary to manage an orderly transition to a new statutory regime. Removing the provision would therefore not provide an additional safeguard; it would risk leaving gaps in the legislative framework and prevent the transition to CAA rule making from operating effectively.
The clause itself delegates powers to the CAA to make legally binding aviation safety rules using a process that is quicker and simpler than the existing process of making secondary legislation. That will allow detailed and technical aviation safety requirements to be updated more quickly and efficiently, helping the UK to keep pace with technological developments and evolving international standards. The Secretary of State’s existing powers to legislate remain unaffected. The Bill allows the Government to reserve matters that should not be delegated to the CAA, including where issues of national security or the wider public interest arise.
Importantly, the framework includes robust safeguards. That includes a power for the Secretary of State to direct the CAA with regard to rule making. The CAA will in most situations be required to consult before making rules, to publish them transparently and to report annually on the use of its powers. The Secretary of State will also set strategic priorities for the CAA’s rule making and may direct how those functions are exercised, while not being able to dictate the content of individual rules. That gives Parliament a clearer and more joined-up view of safety rule making, replacing today’s fragmented approach. Together, the provisions create a more agile system for updating aviation safety requirements, while maintaining clear accountability and oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Alison Griffiths
We have reached the conclusion that the Minister and I are probably not going to agree on the need for parliamentary scrutiny or for the holding back of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, so I will press the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I will suspend the sitting for a 10-minute comfort break before we address the other amendments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 14 to 16 stand part.
Government amendment 4.
Clause 17 stand part.
Keir Mather
With apologies to the Committee for continuing my grand oration, I will speak to these clauses and Government amendment 4, in my name.
Clause 13 restores powers lost following EU exit to create and amend criminal offences relating to aviation safety requirements in assimilated law. It closes a gap in the current framework by allowing air navigation orders to provide for offences relating to breaches of those requirements in assimilated law, helping to ensure that they can be enforced effectively. The clause also updates the power in respect of endangerment offences to ensure that the most serious aviation safety risks are treated appropriately. Importantly, it does not create any new offences itself, and any future use of the power would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 14 provides a standard consequential amendment power to ensure that legislation operates effectively following the changes made by this Bill. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to update, amend or remove references and provisions elsewhere in the statute book where it is necessary as a consequence of the Bill. The power is limited to consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving changes and cannot be used to make policy changes. Any regulations made under this power must be made by statutory instrument, and where such regulations amend or repeal provisions in primary legislation, they will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In all other cases, the regulations will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. The clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the legislative framework remains clear and consistent, while maintaining appropriate parliamentary oversight.
Clause 15 is a standard provision that sets out the extent of the Bill’s measures. Clause 16 contains provisions relating to the commencement of Bill measures, including a standard power for the Secretary of State to bring provisions of the Bill into force by commencement regulations. Leaving provisions in the Bill to be brought into force by regulations will afford the necessary flexibility to commence the provisions at the appropriate time, having regard to the need to make any necessary secondary legislation, issue guidance, undertake appropriate training and put the necessary systems and procedures in place, as the case may be.
Government amendment 4 covers a procedural matter. It removes
“the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords”,
which is currently in clause 17(2) of the Bill. The privilege amendment and its removal is standard procedure for all Bills that originate in the other place. Clause 17 sets out the short title—the name by which an Act of Parliament is commonly known and cited. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Alison Griffiths
I will briefly address clauses 13 and 14. Clauses 15 and 16 are technical, and even by the exacting standards of Opposition scrutiny it would be a little harsh to take issue with clause 17, which simply gives the Bill its name. I shall leave those clauses alone.
Clause 13 widens the circumstances in which air navigation orders may create, amend or appeal criminal offences connected with aviation safety requirements. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how those powers are expected to be used and what parliamentary scrutiny will apply.
Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to make consequential provision arising from the Bill, including the power to amend or appeal primary legislation. The Government’s own memorandum says:
“We have identified all the changes to primary legislation that we believe are necessary…and have included them in the Bill.”
They also say that the power is being retained in case something important has been missed. I would therefore be interested to hear in what circumstances the Minister expects that power to be used?
Keir Mather
In relation to when I would expect the power to be used, I will not be drawn into commenting on hypothetical situations in which that might be appropriate. However, I can reassure the shadow Minister that it is designed to allow the Bill to operate effectively. It is limited and consequential and affects only legislation that does not have a primary application. In that sense, it is both proportionate and technical in ensuring the application of the Bill.
Clause 13 pertains only to restoring powers that have been lost following our exit from the EU to both create and amend the relevant criminal offences. It closes the gap in the current framework that relates to offences that breach those requirements in assimilated law. It does not create any new offences, and any future use of the power would be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. There are appropriate safeguards, and that addresses a powers gap issue that has only been caused by our exit from the European Union. I would be happy to provide the shadow Minister with any other information she might require. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Independent Aviation Ombudsman
“(1) The Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 1 insert—
‘1A Independent Aviation Ombudsman
(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Aviation Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”).
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, funding, and operation of the Ombudsman, and such regulations must include provision for—
(a) the appointment of the Ombudsman by the Secretary of State, following consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) the term of office, terms of appointment, and removal of the Ombudsman;
(c) funding of the Ombudsman’s functions by a levy on operators or owners of aircraft registered with the Civil Aviation Authority and on airport operators.
(3) The Ombudsman may investigate a complaint made by—
(a) a passenger, or a person acting on a passenger’s behalf;
(b) a resident, or a representative body of residents, in an area materially affected by a decision on airspace change, flight path, or air navigation services; against a regulated person, in relation to a matter within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under subsection (4).
(4) The matters within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction include—
(a) complaints about the service provided by an airline, airport operator, or air navigation service provider, including delay, cancellation, denied boarding, baggage, and accessibility for disabled passengers;
(b) complaints about the conduct of the Civil Aviation Authority in exercising its regulatory functions, including airspace change decisions made under the process set out in the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airspace Change Process;
(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.
(5) Before investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman must be satisfied that the complainant has first exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the regulated person, unless the Ombudsman considers it would be unreasonable to require this.
(6) Following an investigation, the Ombudsman may—
(a) make a determination in favour of the complainant, including a direction that the regulated person pay compensation, take remedial action, or both;
(b) publish the determination and the reasons for it.
(7) A determination made under subsection (6)(a) is binding on the regulated person and enforceable, on the application of the Ombudsman, as if it were an order of the county court in England and Wales and Northern Ireland or of the Sheriff Court in Scotland.
(8) The Ombudsman must, at least once a year, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the Ombudsman’s functions, including the number and nature of complaints received, upheld, and resolved.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(10) In this section—
“regulated person” means a person holding an operating licence, an airport operator, or a licensed air navigation service provider;
“the Civil Aviation Authority” has the meaning given in the Civil Aviation Act 1982.’”—(Luke Taylor.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank the Minister for the meetings he has held with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to discuss his new clause. However, there are still some concerns and issues that we would like to address on behalf of his constituents.
To be clear, the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend, do support airspace modernisation. Communities across the country support it too, but modernisation works only if people trust the process that delivered it. At the moment, there is a risk that that trust is missing and that consent is not necessarily fully collected at the beginning of the process. Communities are asked for their views only once a draft design exists and, unfortunately, by that point—I have spent time in the aviation industry and know this full well—although choices have not necessarily been made, the direction and likely outcomes have been narrowed down to what is feasible, and there is often not a huge amount between many of the options.
The new CAP 1616 update, in force since 1 October, makes that feedback and collection of consultation and input more difficult still. Residents affected by proposed changes are not included in the earlier stakeholder reference groups, and locally agreed design principles have been replaced by national priorities. The sponsor decides who is consulted and how, and the gateways in the process have fallen from three to one, with post-implementation reviews removed. Although we understand the need to speed up the process, we feel that this has tilted too far towards expediting the process rather than allowing communities to meaningfully feed back. Before, during and after a proposal, there is no accessible independent route for a community to be heard. The only challenge available after a decision is made is judicial review, and that is not a realistic option for a village, residents’ association or group of residents wanting to bring its points forward.
Some will say that an independent review function existed, but was barely used and the CAA scrapped it. However, new clause 1 proposes something different. Low use of an old process is not an argument against producing a better one. Nor is this about slowing change: the purpose is to let communities feed in early so that problems are caught before decisions are made, rather than having to be fought afterwards. The Government have given conflicting signals on whether the Public Service Ombudsman can deal with regulatory decisions. A written answer in the other place said that it cannot, but on Second Reading, the Minister suggested that it could.
I have three questions to ask the Minister, which I hope he can respond to today. Were the PSO route and the first-tier tribunal route examined, and if not, why not? Why is aviation excluded from that tribunal? How do the Government plan to ensure in practice that communities are included throughout the process and that their voices can truly be heard?
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are seeking to do in new clause 1, but what assessment have they made of the financial implications of setting up this new route on a per annum basis?
Luke Taylor
That is a good question, and I think the principle there would be to shift it on to the Government to say what the assessment of the cost would be. The cost was used as a reason to push back on this, but it did not appear to have been calculated. If the cost is unknown, I would suggest that that slightly weakens the argument that it is excessive.
There will obviously be a trade-off between the cost, the delay and the additional time taken to deliver these changes with the ability of communities to meaningfully feed back. Ultimately, this is about taking communities with us, because as we have said a number of times today—and different colleagues have made this point at different stages—we have to take communities with us in the changes that we are making to airspace, flightpaths, and approach and departure routes so that everybody can feel like their input is being considered. In that way, we do not lose that public consent and engagement with the process, and people are still encouraged to apply and feed back in future consultations. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s responses to my three questions.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for tabling new clause 1. The Government agree that passengers and communities should have access to effective complaints and redress, but I do not believe that the case for a new aviation ombudsman has been fully made. I have had productive conversations with the hon. Member, and I understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is raising this issue in order for us to tease out some of those difficulties, so I hope I can address those to some extent in this debate. Whatever I cannot address now, I can set out to the hon. Members in writing.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak briefly to new clause 1. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Horsham is seeking to achieve with this new clause, but much of what he is calling for is already addressed through the wider provisions of this Bill, particularly the new powers being given to the CAA to protect consumers and enforce passenger rights. I am therefore concerned that introducing another layer of regulation through a separate aviation ombudsman would be unnecessarily cumbersome and potentially duplicative. We should allow the measurements in this Bill to take effect before creating further regulatory structures. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods.
Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that.
The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for this new clause on surveillance pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.
Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency. Where pricing practices use consumers’ personal data, businesses must do so in accordance with data protection requirements.
The hon. Member is right to point to concerns that many Members and members of the public have about surveillance pricing. He is also right to say, however, that the evidence on its application is not complete. It is a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. Clause 1 allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. For that reason, I do not believe that implementing this new clause at this moment is appropriate. I hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the clause.
Olly Glover
I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Automatic Compensation
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004.
(2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Duty to provide information about flight delays—
“(1) An airline operator must provide passengers affected by a delay to a scheduled flight with timely, accurate and accessible information about that delay in accordance with this section.
(2) That duty requires the operator to–
(a) notify affected passengers of the delay as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of it;
(b) provide an updated estimated departure time at intervals of not more than 30 minutes until the flight departs or is cancelled;
(c) state the reason for the delay so far as the operator is able to do so;
(d) inform passengers of any rights to assistance, compensation or rebooking arising from the delay; and
(e) ensure that information provided under this subsection is accessible to passengers with a disability or impairment.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations–
(a) specify the minimum information threshold to which passengers are entitled under this section, including as to its content, form and frequency;
(b) impose additional requirements on airline operators in relation to delay information for passengers with complex travel circumstances;
(c) make provision about accessibility standards for the purposes of subsection (2)(e); and
(d) make provision about enforcement of the duty under this section, including by conferring functions on the Civil Aviation Authority.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires airlines operators to provide passengers with timely, accurate and accessible information in relation to delays and establishes the provision of a minimum information threshold to which passengers are entitled.
Olly Glover
New clause 4 would introduce the concept of automatic delay repay to flights. The concept exists in the rail industry, although admittedly it is somewhat inconsistently applied, as we debated previously during the Railways Bill discussions, which I am sure we all remember with great fondness and nostalgia.
At present, the law grants air passengers a right to compensation for significant delays, yet places the entire burden of securing that right upon the passenger. Passengers do not always find that a welcome experience. They must identify their entitlement, submit a claim and, in many cases, pursue it through dispute resolution or the courts. Anyone who has ever had to try to get compensation from an airline knows that it is often a long, hard-fought struggle to get what one is owed.
The scale of the issue is considerable. More than 45 million passengers departed UK airports between June and August of this year. Disruption over those three months is estimated to have cost in excess of £800 million. The consumer organisation Which? has found that airlines are retaining millions of pounds in unclaimed compensation, with thousands of passengers refused payment. Airlines already hold the information required: passengers’ identity, payment details and boarding records, and the precise arrival and departure times of the planes.
As I mentioned, the rail industry has demonstrated through delay repay that compensation can be processed automatically and at scale, for clear consumer benefit. A claims-based system disproportionately disadvantages those least able to navigate it—older passengers, disabled passengers, families with young children and those who may be less confident or have less access to digital services.
An entitlement that can be realised only by the most persistent is not an entitlement equally available to all. Passengers should not have to fight for what the law already says they are owed. It should be paid to them in full as a matter of course, except of course in the minority of cases where the delay may not be clear and so on.
Were I a betting man, I would predict the Minister saying that this legislation is not the appropriate place for this measure—if I have correctly anticipated that, perhaps he might say what he thinks of the idea and where else it might be explored.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which seeks to implement an automatic compensation scheme for eligible flights within six months of Royal Assent. We do share the objective of ensuring that passengers receive the compensation to which they are entitled. However, the consultation that took place in 2022 demonstrated that reform of the aviation compensation regime is complex and involves a range of competing considerations. Further work is needed assess the merits, costs and practical implications of different approaches.
The new clause would require the Government to implement a specific solution within six months, before that work has been completed and the evidence properly evaluated. Any changes should be considered as part of the wider air passenger rights and compensation framework, to ensure that it remains robust and strikes the right balance. Clause 1 will allow the Government to make reforms in this area where the evidence supports them. I therefore believe the conversation is best had in the context of that clause, once we have achieved Royal Assent. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw it.
Chair, am I now turning to new clause 9? Should I take both new clauses together?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 9, which seeks to establish a duty to provide information about flight delays. Passengers should receive timely, accurate and accessible information when their flight is delayed or disrupted. However, many of the matters addressed by this new clause are already covered by existing legislation and regulatory oversight. Airlines are already required to provide passengers with information about disruption and, where applicable, in accessible formats. The CAA monitors compliance with those requirements and recently conducted research on airline communications with passengers during disruption. The report looked at passengers’ preferences and made recommendations to airlines, and the CAA will work closely with industry to take those forward to improve passenger communications.
While the intention of this new clause is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances. We do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the framework already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the Bill to introduce targeted requirements in future where evidence demonstrates they are needed.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents. We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.
Olly Glover
My apologies; I should have covered new clause 9 when speaking at the beginning—that was my oversight—but both the Minister and the shadow Minister have summed it up well. All I would add on that particular new clause is that, while I understand what hon. Members have said, we are going to have to do something to improve this issue, rather than just hoping that the marvellous aviation sector sorts it. These are very long-standing problems. Technology, and information technology in particular, have moved on. It should be easier to do these things well. The Minister keeps referring to clause 1—goodness me, the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon it; it will perhaps be the most impactful clause 1 there has ever been in a Government Bill, the way he is talking it up. We can keep an eye on that in future. I shall not push these new clauses to a vote, as we do have a few more to get through; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
National Disruptive Passenger Database: Duty to publish proposals
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.
(2) The proposals under subsection (1) should include, but not be limited to, provisions that would—
(a) facilitate airlines to share information on disruptive passengers;
(b) require airlines to notify the Government of an incident involving a disruptive passenger;
(c) alert participating airlines when a person in the database books a flight; and
(d) provide airlines with an option of refusing to carry passengers flagged by the database.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am up and down like a jack-in-the-box. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a national disruptive passenger database, for all the obvious reasons that we know of. Alas, when one is on a plane and there is a disruptive passenger, one tends not to have the luxury of moving to the next carriage, as one can on a train. One of the many advantages of rail travel is that fact that one has that freedom—although not always, of course, because trains are sometimes rammed or short-formed, and so on. I am not going to wang on for too long about this, because I believe that the Government have some good plans on this topic, and I will give the speaking time over to the Minister to hopefully tell us about them.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clause, which seeks to require proposals for a national disruptive passenger database to be published within six months of Royal Assent. I must say, it brings me absolutely no pleasure to rain on the hon. Member’s parade in the way that I have done for the previous few new clauses that we have debated. However, there may be some rays of light in relation to this one, when it comes to action that the Government are taking in this space.
Disruptive passenger behaviour is completely unacceptable, and airline staff and passengers must be protected from those who engage in such conduct. That is precisely why the Government have announced work with airlines and trade unions to develop a new system for sharing information on persistently disruptive passengers that does not require primary legislation. That work is under way, and we are considering practical arrangements to improve information sharing while properly addressing data protection, fairness and operational effectiveness. Requiring the publication of statutory proposals within six months and prescribing specific features that they must contain risks pre-empting the ongoing work and limiting our ability to develop the most effective solution in partnership with industry.
I cannot express enough my agreement about how much of a significant problem this is. I recently met representatives from Unite the Union and GMB from Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport. They described the appalling abuse that they get as members of staff from disruptive passengers, including being hit and spat at and having people screaming in their face. Because information sharing does not take place in the existing system, a disruptive person can just walk out of the airport, book a new ticket, walk back in and board a different carrier’s flight.
I am pleased to say that airlines and airports have been constructive and helpful in engaging with us on the work to develop this system and create a shared list of passengers, so that airlines can determine whether to allow them to board. We are making meaningful progress in this space. For those reasons, although we share the objective of the new clause, the Government’s existing work provides the right route to develop a proportionate and workable approach. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.
Alison Griffiths
I am delighted to hear the Minister’s comments. This is such an important topic. It is quite extraordinary; anyone who flies regularly will know how disruptive such behaviour is, and this has become an increasingly concerning issue in recent years. It is a serious matter for passengers, cabin crew and airlines, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the Government are now giving this proper attention. I look forward to a timeline from him on when he will bring forward this system. The Liberal Democrats have suggested a timeline in their new clause, which has been rejected, so I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.
Keir Mather
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s encouragement for us to set out a timeline. This is being developed in consultation with private sector operators who are working through the data requirements and legal strictures that relate to information sharing of this kind. It is obviously a complicated process. That being said, I am happy to take this away and write to both her and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and share whatever detail I can on how the scheme is likely to unfold.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.
Olly Glover
We have heard enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Passenger Luggage Minimum Sizing: Duty to produce regulations
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations providing for ‘British Standard’ luggage for Air Travel.
(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must set out the following definitions—
(a) ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’, namely a hand bag or personal item form of carry-on luggage; and
(b) ‘British Standard Suitcase’, namely a form of large carry-on bag.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide for a minimum size, both in terms of dimensions and weight, for both the British Standard Hand Luggage and the British Standard Suitcase, and require airlines to allow luggage which meets the definition of a British Standard Hand Luggage to be taken on board by passengers without charge.
(4) The regulations made under subsection (1) may permit airlines to charge passengers who wish to carry a British Standard Suitcase aboard, however airlines may not impose a restriction on ‘carry-on luggage’ which would be smaller than the definitions of a ‘British Standard Suitcase’.
(5) Regulations made under this section must establish a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet the definitions of either ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’ or ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”—(Luke Taylor.)
This new clause makes provision for a minimum standard for hand luggage and carry-on bags and establishes a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet those standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause returns to my overarching theme, and that of all of us, which is how to make flying slightly less horrible for all involved—for families, the disabled, those who need to drive to the airport. The new clause would take a huge step towards making flying marginally less stressful and, importantly, less expensive for anyone who brings hand luggage aboard a flight.
To explain the new clause as clearly as possible, I will start by defining the difference between the British standard hand luggage in subsection (2)(a) and the British standard suitcase in subsection (2)(b). Those admittedly somewhat overly theatrical terms simply act as minimum standards and not, sadly for any aspiring baggage entrepreneurs among us, as required suitcase models or dimensions.
Regulation EU261 has recently been agreed for passengers departing from inside the EU. That regulation will entitle passengers to carry a personal item that fits under the seat in front of them, which corresponds roughly to my British standard hand luggage item. Under EU261, that has a maximum dimension defined as 40 cm by 30 cm by 15 cm, adding up to 85 cm combined. EU261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase, as weighing up to 7 kg and requiring a maximum of 100 cm in combined dimensions.
We are all very aware that the UK is no longer part of the EU. Opinions on the wisdom of that may vary, but it means that British passengers may be entitled to a free cabin bag only when returning home on a carrier covered by the new EU regulation. For example, easyJet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries and not to departures from the UK. Passengers flying out of the UK will therefore not benefit from a free item of hand luggage, despite the new rules in Europe. The airline easyJet said that the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights.
That demonstrates the need for the new clause. It would avoid streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because of different rules on one leg of the trip from another. If we do not address the issue, we risk tourists being put off visiting our country due to the lack of parity, costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue.
Today, we have already heard about how passengers run a gauntlet of fees, charges, fines and mistakes: as they travel from home, through the drop-off curve where they are forced to pay a charge or are fined; at check-in, where they may be forced to pay a fee to guarantee that they can sit near their children or to check a bag; and then at security, where they might have their perfume or purchased drink taken away if slightly over the limit. Having navigated our way to the gate, we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon-fibre tube, mere millimetres thick, which, together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 mph at 40,000 feet through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain, to a far-off land while we stew in 200 strangers’ halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people’s screaming children—while ours sit at the far corner of the plane, because we did not pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together.
Before boarding, however, we must face the most terrifying hurdle of all: the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame. We look down and suddenly realise that we have packed our hand luggage in our easyJet bag, instead of the Ryanair bag—easyJet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines, at 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm, which compares with 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm for Ryanair. The 1 cm-height, 5 cm-width and 5 cm-depth exceedance of that bag clearly means that it cannot fit on the 40-metre long aircraft I longingly gaze at through the terminal window. I shuffle forward with my bag. I am now past the point of no return, because I could have dealt with my error at check-in by paying £45-ish to check the bag into the hold.
Edward Argar
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow of rhetoric highlighting the golden age of air travel, as he may or may not characterise it. I do not disagree with the challenges that can be faced and the fact that people make ordinary mistakes, but is there not a simple way of doing this? Before going to the airport and getting on a plane, people should check the requirements on the website and make sure that the bag fits them.
Luke Taylor
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that checking the website could protect the passenger, but the problem is that these are arbitrary sizing decisions so they can be changed at any moment. Should Ryanair need to prop up its bottom line this season by taking another 5 cm off its baggage sizing, there is nothing to restrict it from doing so. The Bill offers the opportunity to set minimum standards for passenger service and to give passengers power and protection from predatory practices. I think we should grasp that opportunity, and that is why the new clause is so necessary.
To begin to conclude, the race to the bottom that Lord Hendy described is not the worst-case scenario; it is what is actually happening today. We live today under the tyranny of the gate agent’s sizing frame. The new clause would throw off that yoke and release us into a free market of airlines competing on passenger experience, service and price, rather than on their fear at sea level before they even board that terrible, fragile, flammable metal fart tube of misery. Please support new clause 8 today—not just because it is right, but maybe so I do not have to subject Members to this rant all over again during the Bill’s remaining stages.
Keir Mather
When I recently visited the Bayeux tapestry, I learned that the British Museum was the first institution to ever have “British” applied to its name, and I am now reflecting on the fact that we have an entire classification of luggage named after our beautiful country. It is hard not to be filled with a flood of patriotism at the prospect, and it is hard not to be moved by the reflections of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.
In my youth—some say it has not yet ended—I also experienced just the thing that the hon. Gentleman described. When I was on the way back from a rowdy holiday in Portugal, I flew on a carrier that will remain nameless, and I also felt the trepidation of looking down the line and thinking, “Oh no, I’m not sure my bag is going to fit.” Having to put on two hoodies and two pairs of jeans is not something that anyone should be subjected to, and in that respect, I feel his pain.
However, although the Government support clear information for passengers, and we expect airlines to communicate baggage allowances transparently, I feel that the new clause would impose what is a highly prescriptive statutory regime governing baggage sizes, weight limits and charging practices across the sector as a whole. Such matters are closely linked to airlines’ operating models and their commercial offerings, and any intervention of this scale would require careful consideration of its impacts on competition, consumer choice, operational efficiency and fares.
Luke Taylor
I sympathise with the Minister’s experience on holiday—and the experience of his rapidly decreasing youth. This point was potentially buried at the beginning of my speech, but the introduction of asymmetric EU regulations could present a challenge. Our passengers departing from the UK might not be protected by—I do see this as being “protected”—the same mandatory minimum standards that would support our European brethren on their journeys here. It really is a challenge to remove that disparity and ensure that there are not different rules at either end, which could then be exploited by carriers imposing charges and different conditions in each direction of a trip.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully.
I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.
Olly Glover
How do I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam?
Olly Glover
One will endeavour to be brief; I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s ventures always succeed in that aim either. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam generally shows himself to be a champion of the aviation industry, yet his description of the experience perhaps undermines that brand.
I want to speak to new clause 11, which would introduce a passenger charter for air travel. My hon. Friend has talked about a micro example of some of the challenges of customer service in the industry; new clause 11 is more about the macro—the wider picture. Airline customer service is too often not up to scratch, as we have discussed already, especially when problems arise. Which? research in 2024 found that airlines were the third-worst sector for overall customer service. Another Which? customer satisfaction survey earlier this year found that four in 10 customers experienced problems when contacting an airline with an issue or query. The survey also found that Ryanair was the worst short-haul airline for customer satisfaction, although it is interesting to note how many people continue to use it. That is one for the business and marketing students to ponder.
In that survey, customers were asked to rate airlines on numerous factors, including whether the flight was on time, last-minute cancellations, how big the seat pitch was, seat comfort, how easy the booking process and boarding were, customer service, food and drink, cabin environment and value for money. Ryanair’s response was that the survey was “fake”—who does that remind us of?—and that nobody pays attention to these “manufactured surveys”.
For those reasons, we have tabled this passenger charter for air travel. It would provide targets on punctuality, reliability and improved onboard amenities, including in-flight wi-fi. It would also take steps to ensure that delay compensation is automatic and digital. The charter is ultimately designed to promote a customer-first approach in the aviation sector, just as we have sought to do for the railways. Poorly performing airlines such as Ryanair, which dismiss negative customer feedback as fake, could clearly use some statutory direction on how to treat their customers.
We support the principle of redesigning the skies and recognise that they need updating, but we must ensure that, in doing so, we do not leave communities on the ground suffering a bad service. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 11. Mrs McVey, with your generosity, we would like to press new clauses 8 and 11 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Passengers’ charter for air travel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter for Air Travel.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter for Air Travel must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any flight operated to, from or within the United Kingdom;
(b) targets for punctuality and reliability of air services;
(c) timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on aircraft, including in relation to—
(i) seat design and minimum seat pitch,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable in-flight connectivity,
(iii) provision of power outlets and USB charging points,
(iv) storage for carry-on luggage, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of lavatories, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of in-flight catering on any service with a total scheduled duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of aircraft, airports, areas immediately surrounding airports and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and alternative transport arrangements, for passengers with disabilities requiring relevant equipment such as wheelchairs;
(e) extension of the principles behind existing flight delay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities; and
(f) a commitment that air carriers will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation; and
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by the carrier from a customer's booking or ticketing account.”
This new clause creates provision for a Passengers’ Charter.
Olly Glover
First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous.
New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review.
In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10.
I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation.
The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines.
Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here.
In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.
Alison Griffiths
New clause 10 is a very sensible amendment and one that is clearly in the interests of passengers. Given the significant changes being introduced through the Bill, it seems entirely reasonable to review their impacts after two years, particularly on passenger protections and accessibility. It is a fair point; providing greater clarity and accountability over whether the measures are working can only be a good thing. We are therefore happy to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Olly Glover
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight.
New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees.
While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation.
While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill.
While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal.
The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill.
That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Alison Griffiths
I find new clause 12 quite extraordinary. We have been clear throughout these proceedings that we want to see economic growth, greater investment and a thriving, internationally competitive aviation sector. Airport expansion has an important role to play in achieving these ambitions, subject to sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I simply cannot understand why we would want to insert a provision into the Bill that deliberately seeks to restrict our ability to deliver that growth.
We want Britain to succeed and we will not be signing up to measures that deliberately seek to curtail the economic growth our country so desperately needs.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is intended to ensure that the economic regulation of NATS contains effective incentives to prevent avoidable disruption and strengthen operational resilience, as we recognise the impact that major system failures have on airlines, passengers and the wider economy. It would establish the principle that NATS’s regulatory framework should incentivise the prevention of major disruption events, particularly those arising from operational and technology failures. It should not simply focus on the recovery of costs. Recent NATS outages have demonstrated that the consequence of operational failures are borne overwhelmingly by airlines and passengers through cancellations, delays and the loss of economic activity, but the existing regulatory incentives are primarily focused on delay metrics and do not adequately address resilience, software assurance and major cancellation events.
The new clause would not alter NATS’s role as the UK’s air navigation service provider or undermine resilience. Instead, it would ensure that the regulator considers the economic consequence of major failures and whether the existing incentives are sufficient to drive operational performance. It would place those principles on a firm statutory footing and enhance the role of the CAA regarding the role of NATS in mitigating the impact of major cancellation events.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause, which seeks to ensure that the economic regulatory framework incentivises resilient and reliable air traffic services and efficient and cost-effective operations. Although we fully agree that resilient air navigation services are critical, particularly in the light of recent disruptions, I cannot support the new clause for reasons that I will outline.
In the first instance, safety must remain the overriding priority for air traffic controllers. Air traffic control decisions must be taken solely on safety grounds; they should not be based on other considerations, such as financial penalties. The CAA already regulates NATS with an existing regime that provides accountability, with delay-related targets and a penalty mechanism that reduces airline charges.
In addition, the new clause risks prejudging the results of ongoing work. The Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to lead an independent investigation into the air traffic control disruptive events in September. It will examine the cause of the incidents and broader questions relating to NATS’s resilience, capital investment and modernisation plans, and will help to identify any lessons needed to strengthen the resilience of the UK air traffic management system. It will also review the findings, recommendations and actions arising from previous significant UK disruption, such as in August 2023. It will assess the extent to which they have been effectively implemented and whether they remain adequate for addressing system resilience, and the consequences of major disruption for airlines and passengers in the wider aviation sector.
The new clause assumes that the appropriate response to recent disruptions is to alter the statutory framework for economic regulation. However, it is not yet clear that the underlying issues relate to deficiencies in the CAA’s economic regulatory duties. The CAA’s investigation is intended to establish precisely what caused the incidents and what lessons should be learned. It would be premature to conclude that legislative changes to economic regulation are required before that evidence is available. If the CAA’s investigation identifies a case for changes to the economic regulatory framework, those proposals should be considered through the normal policymaking process so that any reforms are carefully developed, properly tested and coherent, rather than pre-empting the outcome of that work now. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that work is ongoing on this important issue and gives him leave to withdraw the new clause.
Alison Griffiths
I am delighted to hear from the Minister that work is ongoing on this important subject. New clause 15 makes a valuable contribution and we are happy to support it. Given the multiple serious failures at NATS in recent years, including two in September alone, it is absolutely right that the regulatory framework places greater emphasis on operational resilience and reliability, and preventing major disruption. We have seen the enormous consequences of these failures for airlines, passengers and the wider aviation industry, with thousands of flights disrupted through absolutely no fault of their own. What message does that send to potential investors—those wishing to expand and grow?
Frankly, I question whether the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that our air traffic control system is fit for purpose. They could not even be bothered to come to the House to make a statement, and had to be dragged to the Chamber to answer the urgent question asked by the shadow Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We must do everything possible to safeguard passengers and airlines from further disruption and ensure that the regulatory framework properly incentivises NATS to prevent these failures in the first place. I therefore welcome the new clause, and the Opposition will support it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Keir Mather
May I thank the shadow Minister? It has been a pleasure to work with her in the Committee room for the first time, and I look forward to many such interactions in the future. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made such fantastic contributions from their lived experience and from their constituency experiences—some more vivid than others, it must be said. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure; the Bill Committee has been filled with constructive debate and good humour. I also thank the Whips, my fantastic Bill team, all the Clerks and staff who have made today’s proceedings possible, and you, Chair.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
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
Manufacturing Skills
(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
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered manufacturing skills.
It is a sublime pleasure to serve under your superb chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who, due to his giddy elevation to Parliamentary Private Secretary, has allowed me to hijack his debate and talk about the Isle of Wight. Derby has rightly received a lot of focus, so now it is our turn.
Although I will of course continue to argue that the Isle of Wight does best at everything, it would be unfair of me not to recognise what Derby does exceptionally well, whether it is trains, aerospace or the development of small modular reactors, coupled with the exciting Team Derby initiative announced in last year’s Budget. It is a city that demonstrates the value of bringing together industry, skills and investment to drive growth.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I am an MP for Derby—or, as our Prime Minister called it, the “great city of Derby”—which is famous for its advanced manufacturing and engineering skills. Our largest employers, such as Alstom, Rolls-Royce and Toyota, are able to invest in skills through apprenticeships. Just last week, Great British Railways, which will have its headquarters in Derby city centre, announced up to 600 new apprenticeships. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must focus more on enabling and supporting smaller manufacturers to invest and train up new apprenticeships to address the skills shortages across the country?
Richard Quigley
The great city of Derby has two great MPs, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend: the more we can do to help small businesses take on apprentices, the better. Anything that teaches people who would not go down the university route a set of skills and takes them into good paid work is absolutely ideal.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The challenge in my region is that foreign direct investment comes in, builds big factories and hoovers up the existing skilled workforce from local small and medium-sized enterprises, and there is not a pipeline to replace them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that regional government works with the further education sector and employers to ensure that there is a proper joined-up skills system so that we do not just bring in new businesses but support our existing SMEs?
Richard Quigley
That is a really good point. On the Isle of Wight, we send 25% of our school leavers to university, but 25% end up not in education, employment or training. A lot of effort goes into the structure and support for getting people to university—we can see how to get to university from the moon—but we do not have the same structures around those who do not end up going to university. My hon. Friend makes the good point that we need to encourage home-grown skills.
Hon. Members are used to hearing me complain about the everyday inequalities that islanders face—do not worry, I am not going to mention ferries. However, today is a welcome opportunity to celebrate an area where the island truly punches above its weight: the advanced manufacturing sector. Per capita, the Isle of Wight has one of the highest concentrations of technology and advanced manufacturing businesses in the country. What is particularly exciting is that we are showing no signs of slowing down. New investment, growing businesses and the development of future skills are helping to ensure that the Isle of Wight remains at the forefront of advanced manufacturing for years to come.
Far from being a peripheral economy, the island is helping to shape the industries of the future and is proving that innovation can thrive in every corner of the country. Take shipbuilding as an example. Once seen as a traditional industry, it is now a showcase for advanced manufacturing. It is an industry in which the island excels. At Wight Shipyard, aluminium welding skills are among the best in the world, and Diverse Marine combines craftsmanship with cutting-edge design and innovation to produce vessels that are lighter, more space efficient and use less fuel.
That success is built on the achievements of island businesses that are leading the way in advanced manufacturing. Companies such as Vestas are helping to power the UK’s transition to clean energy through the manufacture of wind turbine blades, while GKN Aerospace and BAE Systems continue the island’s proud tradition of high-value engineering and world-class aerospace expertise. Johnson Electric develops and manufactures precision motion technologies that are integrated into products used by millions of people around the world, and Rheinmetall’s specialist vision systems provide advanced capabilities for defence and security operations across the globe.
Then there is Inflight Peripherals Ltd, a company whose design innovation reaches millions of people every year. There is a good chance that anybody who has ever sat in an aircraft cabin and plugged their headphones or a device into an in-seat power module has experienced a piece of Isle of Wight manufacturing without realising it.
Such businesses demonstrate that the Isle of Wight is not just preserving our industrial heritage, but helping to define the future of advanced manufacturing and innovation in the UK.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions some fantastic local businesses in his area, leading the way on the transition to clean power and net zero. Crewe and Nantwich is home to Bentley Motors, one of the area’s largest manufacturing employers. The company recently announced 93 early-career opportunities, including 29 apprenticeships, 15 graduate positions and 49 industrial placements, investing directly in the skills of the next generation of workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that employers such as Bentley are demonstrating the long-term commitment to skills we need to see across the country?
Richard Quigley
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Companies such as Bentley offer good, hands-on skills that can be transferred anywhere. If the company needs someone to test drive one of its vehicles on the Isle of Wight, I am that person.
Across the Isle of Wight, manufacturers are developing specialist composites, marine technologies and precision-engineered products that are exported around the world. Those businesses do not just create jobs, they create highly skilled careers, drive innovation and demonstrate that world-class manufacturing can thrive in the UK, especially on the Isle of Wight.
Earlier this year, I was proud to welcome the Minister for Climate Transition, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) to the Isle of Wight, where we visited investors and saw first hand the world-leading manufacturing taking place on our doorstep, helping to lead the way as the country makes the green energy transition. What excited me even more, was the announcement of the new Large Structures Innovation Centre, backed by the National Composites Centre, the High Value Manufacturing Catapult and the University of Bristol.
The centre will be an open-access national facility dedicated to developing, demonstrating and industrialising large high-performance structures, with an initial focus on next generation wind energy. The significance goes far beyond the investment. If we want Britain to remain a leader in advanced manufacturing, we need a pipeline of highly skilled engineers, technicians, fabricators and composite specialists, who can turn innovation into commercial success.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for his excellent contribution. In Derby, apprentices at Alstom are making a huge difference, not just for their own futures but for the rail industry across the UK. More than half the manufacturers I speak to tell me that the shortage in the skills pipeline is their biggest limiting factor for growth. Does my hon. Friend agree that having more apprentices throughout their early years is a key way to reduce that skills gap and help economic growth?
Richard Quigley
I thank my hon. Friend from the great city of Derby for his intervention. He makes a good point in the context of university or not university. Even before apprenticeships, work experience that gets people across the threshold of employers is an important step to providing the skills we need for the future.
The Isle of Wight’s Centre of Excellence for Composites, Advanced Manufacturing and Marine is at the heart of that effort, giving young people and adult learners the chance to develop the cutting-edge manufacturing, engineering and technical skills employers need. That is further proof that advanced manufacturing is not just part of the economy of the Isle of Wight, it is a cornerstone of our future, creating highly skilled jobs and providing opportunities for the next generation.
For me, that is one of the most important parts of this debate. Our skills future matters and we must ensure that no young person is left behind or constrained by the outdated assumption that university or academia is the only viable route forward. Two weeks ago, my office hosted its second annual skills summit, where we brought together island employers, educational institutions and training providers to discuss how to ensure that local people have the skills needed for the jobs being created on their doorstep. There is little value in securing investment and manufacturing opportunities if young people are not equipped to take advantage of them.
We need to ensure we invest in the future of this manufacturing ambition. Apprenticeship starts in engineering and manufacturing have fallen by more than 40%, and many manufacturers still cannot access the training they need. That is why the Government’s investment in vocational education, apprenticeships and manufacturing matters. It sends a clear message that there is more than one route to success.
A young person on the island, who is perhaps unsure whether to take the conventional university path, should be able to look at our thriving manufacturing sector and think, “There is a career there for me.” They should be able to see world-leading businesses on the Isle of Wight and know they do not have to leave the island to build a highly skilled, rewarding career. That is what makes the Government’s emphasis on investing in manufacturing and vocational education so exciting, but it is also why we must move further and faster.
After 14 years of chronic underinvestment in both advanced manufacturing and the opportunities available to young people, there is significant ground to make up. If we want Britain to lead in the industries of the future, we need to invest not only in factories, facilities and innovation, but in the people who will design, build and operate them. The success of advanced manufacturing on the Isle of Wight shows what is possible when talent is given the opportunity to thrive. Our challenge now is to ensure that every young person across the country can see a pathway into those careers and access to the training, apprenticeships and the technical education needed to get there.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the skills shortage can sometimes start with a lack of procurement? For example, factories in my constituency used to clothe the world and Leicester was the second most prosperous city in Europe because of its textile industry. It has gone from having 1,500 factories to 96 because we do not have the procurement or the investments into the factories that give opportunities for skilled workers.
Richard Quigley
I could not agree more. The idea that we can move everything offshore because it is cheaper means we are forgetting what value looks like. If we look at models of community wealth building around the country and the world, procurement is where we start.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Students in Gorton and Denton tell me they often have to spend two to three years on a course before they can even be considered for an apprenticeship. Make UK reports that 39% of manufacturers do not think our education system can deliver the skills that they need. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to make apprenticeships more accessible and flexible so people are not held back from skilled jobs and manufacturers can get the workers they desperately need?
Richard Quigley
The Isle of Wight and the north share a lot in common; we often do not get the focus we need. We know how to get to university; that is a structured route. Even if someone does not get the grades, they can get into university—the whole school will get them into university. On the other side, the option is to just go off to a further education college, if they are lucky. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s point.
Our challenge now is to ensure that every young person across the country can see a pathway into those careers and access to the training, apprenticeships and the technical education needed to get there because investing in manufacturing is only half the job. Investing in the skills that power it is what turns ambition into long-term economic success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate and setting the scene incredibly well, as he often does. I wish him well in the work that he does for his constituents; I can honestly say that they are fortunate to have him as their MP.
Manufacturing is a cornerstone of the United Kingdom, but it might be in jeopardy of crumbling as young people are not entering the sector in sufficient numbers as against workers leaving the industry. What is the background to the debate? I always give a Northern Ireland perspective and make asks of the Minister; hopefully that adds to the debate and where we are.
Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector is set to rise, with projected growth of 13% between 2025 and 2035. That is in addition to an estimated 101,000 workers expected to leave manufacturing priority occupations, bringing the total demand to around 148,000 workers. That is a lot of people to train and prepare for work. Part of that is because the manufacturing sector has a largely ageing workforce when compared with the wider working population.
A report in 2026 found that some 50% of engineering and manufacturing small to medium-sized enterprises experienced skills gaps and/or shortages. That comes despite Government support efforts, as nearly three quarters of businesses surveyed felt support to address skills shortages were lacking. That is largely unsurprising; there has been no increase in funding for engineering apprenticeships since 2020. In the last few days, the Government have indicated plans, so perhaps the Minister could tell us more about what is happening. It is the very definition of unsustainable and the quality of products will undoubtedly be affected.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that colleges need more support to develop those engineering courses? At present, they receive no funding at all to develop a new course, as university colleges in Somerset have found when catering for the new Agratas factory. They have to find their own investment to develop courses and they receive no funding until those courses have actually started. Surely that hampers innovation, new training and new skills being developed.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is listening intently and I am sure he will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman and encourage him and all of us, as that is the purpose of us being here.
I will speak about Northern Ireland now. The issue is not unique to Northern Ireland, however skills shortages will be felt particularly acutely there. Northern Ireland boasts of major manufacturers, such as Spirit AeroSystems, Wrightbus, Harland & Wolff and Thales. Thales is one of the defence sector companies that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I visit at least once every year. I primarily go because the majority of workers at Thales come from my Strangford constituency. It has also been encouraging that Thales sets a target for apprenticeships every year and is always oversubscribed.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that apprenticeships are key going forward? We have to increase the number of apprenticeships, the skills base and the productivity—a problem that has beset successive Governments for many years.
Jim Shannon
I do. On the work that Thales does with students, it pays their student fees and gives them an incredible wage. Some of the young boys I know from Comber—they are young men now—who have taken the apprenticeships are working incredibly hard across the world in the Thales corporation. There is a network of small engineering firms to supply specialist services. Many of these skilled suppliers operate in and around my constituency of Strangford, making the local economy particularly vulnerable to manufacturing skills shortages.
Harland & Wolff is looking for 500 new workers. It has recruited some 500 already and is hoping to recruit another 500, so there is demand in Northern Ireland for skilled workers. It also offers apprenticeships. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 11% of employment in Northern Ireland, making it a vital contributor to the regional economy. Northern Ireland’s employment is currently the third lowest in the United Kingdom, standing just shy of 900,000. Further strengthening and investing in our manufacturing skills could help expand employment opportunities.
I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to her response. What discussions has she had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can enjoy the policy and strategy happening here? I join other Members and those who speak after me in calling on the Government to take urgent action to address the skills shortages across the manufacturing sector. The United Kingdom’s manufacturing and engineering skills gap is estimated to cost businesses more than £5 billion each year. Now is the time to act. It can take three to four years for apprentices to actually learn the skills and add to the companies they are employed with.
I am mindful that some 12 other Members wish to speak. Failing to act now will leave the next generation without the technical skills that employers need. Action must include improving women’s access to manufacturing careers. I am blessed and pleased that, with Harland and Wolff and Spirit, young ladies are getting the opportunity to gain engineering skills—and are taking it—but we could do more to encourage young women in particular to get into manufacturing careers and to create more opportunities for young people to gain practical industrial skills. By widening the talent pool, the Government can help secure the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland and indeed across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and beyond, protecting skilled manufacturing businesses. That is the purpose of Government, and that is the purpose of the hon. Member for Strangford. Let us see what we can do together.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. Wolverhampton and Willenhall helped build Britain and beyond. Generations of skilled engineers, metalworkers and manufacturers made products that were sold across the world. Manufacturing skills are fundamental to places like mine, and call for policymakers, industry, schools and colleges to work together to rise to this Government’s ambition to reindustrialise our country.
As the MP for Wolverhampton North East, I represent a constituency with a proud industrial heritage and a thriving manufacturing base, which forms an industrial ecosystem that supports skilled jobs, innovation and economic growth. While the industries have evolved, the principle has remained the same: success depends on having the skilled workforce to innovate, compete and grow, yet employers across the country continue to report shortages in the technical skills they need to grow and innovate.
I commend Collins Aerospace, which chose Wolverhampton to host its new world-leading engineering centre of excellence for aircraft systems in innovation, leading the charge on collaboration with industry and academia. I was delighted this year when City of Wolverhampton college secured technical excellence college status for advanced manufacturing. That is a rubber stamp of confidence in places such as Wolverhampton, which are now among the national leaders in technical education and helping to develop the future engineers, technicians and skilled manufacturing workers that our local economy needs. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to developing a new school curriculum that values technical and vocational education alongside academic achievement. As a former school leader, I know that for far too long technical routes have been treated as a second choice.
Apprenticeship starts have begun to move in the right direction; in 2024-25, they increased by more than 13,000 on the previous year. That is encouraging progress after years in which they consistently failed to recover to the level needed by our economy and manufacturing sector.
However, many training providers report that funding bands no longer reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality technical training, while employers and colleges continue to face additional costs in training welders, fabricators, CNC machinists and engineering technicians, despite those being precisely the skills that our economy needs more of. A skills policy works best when decisions are made closer to the communities and employers that they affect. Greater devolution of skills and economic development powers gives manufacturing communities in places such as the west midlands a strong voice in shaping local training provision. Local employers, colleges and training providers are often best placed to identify the workforce needs of our advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors.
When will the Government conclude their review of apprenticeship funding bands? Will engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3 be prioritised to address critical skills shortages? Will the Government work with Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, and with the combined authority, local colleges and schools, training providers and employers, to ensure that Wolverhampton and Willenhall have the engineering and manufacturing skills provision needed to meet the demands of major employers and their supply chains, so that local people can access the highly skilled jobs that will drive Britain’s reindustrialisation?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing the debate and shining a light on this really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally.
Specialist manufacturing is critical to my constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. The Agratas factory being constructed just outside my constituency will employ 4,000 people and have a huge impact on the whole south-west economy. Many of my constituents work there already, and many local suppliers are involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be very positively affected.
That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right to support the sector. In this Chamber last November, I raised the work of University Centre Somerset College Group, which is based at different campuses, not only in my Taunton and Wellington constituency but across Somerset. It is the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. UCS has had to develop a first-of-its-kind programme to meet demand that barely existed just a couple of years ago, when battery manufacturing was barely a mainstream concept in the UK. It is not an easy task, but it is exactly the kind of innovation required to build a skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors that we need, such as battery production.
To the Government’s credit, some things have moved on since then, and I genuinely welcome them. In April, they announced a £380 million grant for the factory itself, and UCS was named a clean energy technical excellence college. Last year, I called on Skills England to invest in partnerships that deliver rather than just producing consultation papers that plan and devise. In March—in just three months—it produced a battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit. That is fantastic progress, but there is a great deal still to do. The first pilot course this summer trained nine Agratas staff, but around 1,600 people will be needed just to start battery cell production.
In a written answer the Government gave last month, they said that they are
“supporting University College Somerset’s work with Agratas.”
I welcome that, but I am afraid that the basic problem I raised last year has not gone away. A college that is developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry will receive funding from the Government or other sources only once the course starts, and, as a further education college, it is not allowed to borrow against potential future funding. The current FE model simply does not support the up-front investment that is required, and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Colleges are also no longer allowed to borrow to invest in the student accommodation that they need, even though doing so would generate income, help to regenerate towns and deliver housing—a priority of this Government—in a particular sector to relieve pressure on local family housing. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of investments and initiatives while the Government take credit only for the positive outcomes.
This issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills; building sites such as the Agratas facility requires an enormous amount of construction skills and labour. Figures from Agratas show that in the peak year of activity, the building of the first factory will support more than 3,000 jobs in the south-west, which is equivalent to around a fifth of all construction jobs in Somerset. That comes on top of Hinkley Point C, which is close to my constituency and also needs many workers skilled in the same area. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build and work in such facilities. The Liberal Democrats have called for apprentices to be paid at least the national minimum wage, and for lifelong skills grants so that adults can retrain for new industries.
I have four asks for the Minister. First, when the Government say that they are “supporting” the work of UCS with Agratas, does that support cover the up-front cost of developing innovative courses? Secondly, will the Government make sure that colleges can set up apprenticeships and skills training in advance of factories being built? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that colleges should be able to forward-fund student accommodation to deliver much-needed housing? Finally, will the Minister meet me and UCS College Group to discuss those points? For Taunton and Wellington, and for the whole south-west, the opportunity is right in front of us. I welcome and congratulate the Government on their backing the Agratas factory with £380 million. They now need to grab the opportunity with both hands, and provide the support and certainty on skills to turn it into a real success.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Doncaster has an incredible history of manufacturing, particularly in transport. Everyone will know of the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard, both of which were built in Doncaster, and Nigel Gresley still has a strong legacy in our local culture. However, right now, all eyes in Doncaster are on another form of transport. Yesterday, we received the fantastic news that my long-standing commitment to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport has been supercharged by an agreement to bring the airport back into public ownership. That incredible achievement comes after a huge amount of work from all involved.
The DSA project is not just about the airport: the deal also covers the adjacent innovation quarter, which has the potential to become a centre for advanced manufacturing, innovation and, ultimately, re-industrialisation for our area. The Prime Minister has put public control, re-industrialisation and localism at the heart of his mission for this country, and Doncaster could not be a better case study for all three, both for how badly they are needed and for the enormous scope for opportunity. When the pits closed, huge parts of my constituency were left behind. De-industrialisation changed the faces of Rossington, Hatfield, Thorne and Moorends, and nothing has ever filled that gap—that is, until now.
All the pieces are in place for Doncaster to become a centre for manufacturing and industry once again. We have excellent logistical connections through road and rail, proximity to the Humber ports, and soon, once it is reopened, the airport. We have major distribution and logistics hubs, including the iPort and the Unity development. Our two Labour mayors and our proactive chamber of commerce work tirelessly to bring jobs and growth to every postcode. We also have educational infrastructure in place, with one existing university technical college and a second one having been approved, as well as other wonderful FE colleges including John Leggott, New College and North Lindsey, to name but a few.
All we need to do now is make sure we develop the skills and the workforce to match the opportunities that lie ahead. We cannot wait until factories are built and businesses recruiting before we begin training the people they will need. I welcome the Government’s commitment to advanced manufacturing through our industrial strategy and the reforms to the growth and skills levy, including new foundation apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing, but we need to make sure that the skills we teach match the skills and needs of the industries we are trying to attract, and that we provide opportunities for existing workers to retrain and develop new skills as well. That means bringing together Government, local authorities, businesses and education providers to plan for the industries and jobs of the future.
Will the Minister outline how the Government are working to ensure that investment in manufacturing skills is aligned with major regional development projects, such as South Yorkshire airport city? In Doncaster, we have seen what happens when industry disappears and nothing comes along to replace it. We know all too well the impact on our economy, on the community and on people and their families. But we have a chance now to regain lost pride and purpose, a chance for the places blighted by deprivation to flourish and prosper once again, and a chance to rebuild our industrial economy. We must make sure that the people of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have the skills to take advantage of it.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate.
We hardly make anything any more. For decades, Scotland has been the victim of industrial vandalism, with our manufacturing base hammered. Last year Petroineos—in other words, the billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the Chinese Government—ended a century of oil refining at Grangemouth. Ultimately, private capital and a foreign Government decided that 435 jobs were to be lost on site, along with 2,822 in the wider supply chain, removing a positive destination for local young people. Over £400 million per annum was lost from Scotland’s national economy, and Scotland’s fuel security was weakened.
In my time in this place, I have been critical of both the Scottish and UK Governments. I stand by that criticism, but the truth is that the SNP Scottish Government knew about the closure for three years and did absolutely nothing to stop it. I will not allow anyone in the SNP to rewrite history on that—although I do not need to, because as everyone can see, SNP Members could not be bothered to attend the debate this morning. They are taking their passion for abstentionism and lack of participation in this place to a new level.
This year, there is yet more industrial devastation as Alexander Dennis’s Canadian owners, NFI, stop bus manufacturing in Scotland, with 115 job losses. That is another piece of Scotland’s manufacturing base deemed disposable by international capital. And yet again the SNP Scottish Government have abandoned workers. Some 334 zero-emission buses were to be built through the ScotZEB3 scheme. Alexander Dennis was awarded 123; the Chinese company Yutong was awarded 166. The truth is that in Scottish politics it was the working class that propelled the SNP into generational power, and the SNP has rewarded communities with buses from Beijing. There are redundancies at Ferguson Marine. We are seeing the creation and promotion of the Tory idea of freeports, which means international tax havens for private capital to extract resources and wealth from Scotland. Make no mistake: the SNP is comfortable with all of that.
With manufacturing, we are on the cusp of a green industrial revolution. We have an opportunity with renewables. But what have the SNP Scottish Government done to create new manufacturing jobs in that sector? They have had off-the-record meetings with corporations looking to get involved in Scotland’s renewable industry. The end result is a green investment portfolio worth £3 billion of green assets that were to be bought by private firms. That is money that the Scottish Government could have ploughed into manufacturing skills and job creation, transforming communities. Instead of building a Scottish manufacturing base that would create worker and community prosperity, the SNP went for outsourcing, privatisation and the continuation of pandering to foreign capital. The SNP are capitalists to their very core.
I do not hold the desire for independence against the SNP or anyone that identifies as a Scottish nationalist—not in the slightest. Indeed, I respect their view. The reason I have no time for the Scottish National party is that it has decimated Scottish manufacturing and waged war on the Scottish working class.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. For many people growing up in Portsmouth, the shipyard was a constant visual reminder that we are a city and a country that made things, and that we made important things: ships that defended our country, protected our freedom and protected British expertise around the world.
The Portsmouth that people remember was full of people with skilled jobs—men and women who took pride in their work, in what they produced and in the contributions that they were making to their communities. There was a clear connection between effort, skill and opportunity. Young people could see a future for themselves. They could look around the city and see where hard work and talent could take them. Unfortunately, over the years, that connection has been weakened. The loss of shipbuilding and other industrial jobs under the Conservatives has meant that too many young people today are not seeing the same opportunities as previous generations. But it is not just a challenge for young people; it is also a challenge for British business. Manufacturers repeatedly tell us that they struggle to recruit people with the right skills.
Before entering politics, I was a teacher for 24 years. Throughout that time, I saw countless young people with enormous potential, but too often those talents were not valued in the way that they should have been. This has to change. We need an education system that values technical excellence just as highly as academic achievement—a system that recognises that our country needs first-class engineers as much as it needs lawyers, accountants or academics.
If we truly want to reindustrialise Britain, we must first rebuild the pipeline of skills that make industrial success possible. That is why this Government’s reforms are so important. I am delighted that from the age of 14, young people will have the opportunity to combine core academic subjects such as English, maths and science with high-quality vocational subjects. They will be able to spend more time with employers, gain real-world experience and develop the practical skills that businesses are looking for, but more importantly, they will be able to see a pathway. That connection matters enormously. The local connection means opportunity for young people and confidence for employers that they can invest, expand and create jobs, knowing that the skilled workers they need will be available.
I have long argued that apprenticeships and training need to be more flexible and more responsive to the needs of different sectors, so I am pleased that the Government are taking these steps with manufacturing. Fixing the skills shortage is not about filling vacancies; it is about building our national capability. Nowhere is that more evident than in a sector that is extremely important to my constituency: the space sector.
The next iteration of the Skynet satellite programme is currently out for procurement. This is a crucial decision for our national security, sovereign space capability and industrial future—and for my city’s future. At Airbus in Portsmouth, highly skilled workers manufacture the payloads, the brains of the satellite. Airbus remains the only company capable of building large spacecraft end to end in the United Kingdom.
The Skynet programme sustains 3,000 highly skilled jobs directly and supports 18,000 jobs across the supply chain. These are skills and capabilities built over decades and they cannot be easily recreated if lost. If we are serious about reindustrialisation, we must be serious about protecting the skills and industrial capabilities that we already have. We cannot simply create shiny new jobs; we must protect the ones we have already. It is not enough to talk about creating skilled jobs if we fail to safeguard the jobs that still exist.
I share the Prime Minister’s ambition to back British industry, strengthen our capabilities and create good jobs in every part of the country. That includes my city. I ask the Minister to impress upon colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence the importance of protecting and sustaining these world-class space manufacturing skills in Portsmouth. We know that rebuilding British manufacturing strength begins with investment in skills, but it must continue with supporting the skills and industry that we already have. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that the next generation can once again look at my city, just as I looked at Portsmouth shipyard growing up, and see a future full of opportunities, purpose and pride.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate at a time when our economy is undergoing transformation. AI, robotics and automation are changing how we manufacture and the skills that our businesses need. If we are serious about reindustrialisation, we have to make sure that our workforce is ready to seize the opportunity that those changes will bring. For places like my constituency of Mansfield, that means rebuilding the connections between education, local employees and employers, and skilled employment. Further education providers, including colleges like West Notts college in my constituency, are critical to delivering that.
On constituency visits, I have been fortunate to see the great work that is already being done by employers working in partnership with West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University. One such visit was to a local aerospace and nuclear electronics company, Glenair, which has recently taken on 60 new apprentices in Mansfield. Often, people consider apprenticeships as an option for school leavers, but what I find in my area is that those opportunities exist equally for adults who want to retrain, change careers or develop new skills. I am therefore very encouraged that Mansfield recorded 680 new apprenticeship starts in 2024-25, more than half of which were taken up by people over the age of 25.
The backdrop to this discussion, as Make UK has reported, is that there are almost 50,000 live vacancies across UK manufacturing. Three in five small or medium-sized manufacturing enterprises identify a lack of the right type of technical skill as a key barrier to recruitment. That apparent weakness can also be seen as an opportunity. For areas like mine, reindustrialisation and the ideas around it represent a real chance to build on our proud industrial heritage and create a new generation of skilled and well-paid jobs, but we have to make sure that local people have the skills to take on those opportunities, whether they are young people starting their careers or adults looking to retrain and learn something new, and skills for a new economy. If we get that right, as a Government and as a country, we can make sure that the industries of the future bring investment, opportunity and prosperity to places like Mansfield and that local people are properly equipped to play their full part in sharing our economic future.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate.
I am incredibly proud to represent Stoke-on-Trent South, which includes part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent—a city with a proud heritage in craftship and industry. Stoke is the birthplace of the Lunar Society, a group of amazing, innovative thinkers, including the great innovator, Josiah Wedgwood. The Lunar Society helped fuel the industrial revolution, and manufacturing is embedded within Stoke-on-Trent and its people.
With the Government’s reindustrialisation agenda, now is the time to invest in creative and advanced manufacturing skills so that our young people can secure highly paid specialist jobs. That is why I want first to mention the excellent myFuture initiative, which was raised with me by Stoke-on-Trent sixth form and the Potteries Educational Trust, and is delivered in partnership with Keele University, the University of Staffordshire, the Careers & Enterprise Company and local SMEs. The initiative is delivering an employer-led skills framework for ages 10 to 19—indeed, up to 25—to over 63,000 students. It delivers a co-designed curriculum experience for 14 to 19-year-olds, with employer-linked career gateways helping teachers to embed employer engagement activities into study and address local skills gaps. MyFuture is seeking support from the Department for Education to become a funded pathfinder project. Will the Minister work with DFE colleagues to support the proposal where gateways align with manufacturing?
Of course, I could not speak in a debate on manufacturing without mentioning ceramics. From iconic tableware manufacturers such as 1882 and Duchess China in my constituency, to advanced ceramics firms such as Mantec, ceramics have shaped our local identity. While ceramics are best known for the products we all love, such as mugs and tableware, advanced ceramics are the hidden backbone of modern manufacturing. They are essential components in the supply chain for high-tech industries, including defence, electronics, nuclear energy, construction and aerospace engineering.
Across the UK, the sector contributes more than £2 billion annually, employs approximately 20,000 people and supports thousands more jobs through the related supply chains. We are incredibly lucky that north Staffordshire is the hotbed of this activity. However, businesses repeatedly tell me that skills shortages are having a significant impact. Experienced workers are retiring, taking decades of specialist knowledge with them, and too few young people are entering the industry. Valuable heritage skills are being lost entirely as employers struggle to attract and retain trainees. Recently, I spoke to an amazing entrepreneur whose business using our creamware is going from strength to strength, but she is concerned for the future, as the person she depends on will soon be retiring. She risks losing his skills and we risk losing her business overseas if we do not fix our skills pipeline.
This is an increasing problem, and it is time we truly focused on backing British products. There is a need to train an estimated 200 to 400 operatives per year in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle in traditional ceramics alone. In advanced ceramics, emerging technologies such as ceramic matrix composites do not yet have recognised apprenticeship or qualification routes. Specialist technical manufacturing knowledge is being lost, with no national masterplan to replace the capability.
I was delighted to see the launch of the craft technician apprenticeship earlier this year, led by Emma Bridgewater in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and supported by Ceramics UK, Skills England and Creative Alliance. Such initiatives are exactly what the sector needs to help the next generation of skilled workers. I also welcome the Government’s £120 million investment to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation in the ceramics industry. Although that funding is important, I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that future funding will consider skills.
At the heart of our reindustrialisation plans sits manufacturing in all its forms. It is the bedrock of our national economy, growth and resilience. We must invest in our future, our people and our skills.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Sir Christopher; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for adopting this important debate. It will not surprise him that I am going to talk largely about Cornwall.
Across Cornwall, our beautiful coastlines hide some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That deprivation and the lack of opportunity is felt most sharply by our young people. In my constituency, we have neighbourhoods where the child poverty rate is over 40%. Equally concerning is the number of young people claiming unemployment benefit, which is up 39% in the last year alone. But there is hope on the horizon for Cornwall. Our critical minerals sector offers an incredible opportunity to create well-paid, highly skilled jobs that our young people and communities need, all while strengthening the country’s industrial resilience and supporting the transition to a green economy. However, we will realise that opportunity only if young people are equipped with the skills that our local economy and businesses need. To that end, we are moving in the right direction.
In September, the new Engineering Mining Academy was launched at Cornwall college, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted, in partnership with Cornish Metals, based at the South Crofty tin mine. The academy’s location could hardly be better, as it is moments around the corner from South Crofty, which was the last tin mine in the UK to close and is now on course to reopen after 30 years. As projects like South Crofty and the Agratas battery gigafactory advance, demand for mining and manufacturing skills will only grow. I therefore welcome the academy’s focus not only on the engineering and technical skills associated with modern mining, but on transferable skills that create a clear pathway into apprenticeships, employment or further study: welding, construction, carpentry, electronics, plumbing—a lifetime trade for our young people with their hands.
Those are the partnerships with industry that we must champion to support our critical minerals and downstream manufacturing sectors. They create good jobs and give young people the aspiration and opportunity to raise their horizons and to build their futures in Cornwall. I therefore ask the Minister to consider what further steps can be taken to realise Cornwall’s potential as the UK’s critical minerals skills hub.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. The winding-up speeches will have to begin at half-past 10.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, and in one led by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley)—the UK’s spokesperson for ferries.
The Government are rightly talking about reindustrialisation at the moment. We can see how well supported that is by Labour Members, given the number of us who want to contribute to the debate, but too often talk of reindustrialisation can lead people to think that we are trying to go back to the past. That is not true anywhere in the country, but especially in the west midlands, where we have a proud manufacturing tradition. Yes, that has been depleted, and many communities across the region are still scarred by that, but communities are also really looking forward to a brighter future in which industrialisation can come back.
Central to manufacturing in my part of the world—Staffordshire—is ceramics. I am proud to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who talked about ceramics in north Staffordshire, but in my part of the world we talk about a different type of ceramics: toilets. Every single Member of this House will have spent a penny with Armitage Shanks at some point, because it has been operating for over 200 years in the village of Armitage, in my constituency. The ceramics industry as a whole supports 20,000 skilled jobs and produces toilets and plates, but also bricks, pipes and the technical ceramics spoken about earlier. Those jobs are essential to economic growth and the economic wellbeing of the entire country, but especially to communities in the north midlands, where so much of the ceramics industry is based.
That is really important to those communities, but it is also really important for what the Government are seeking to achieve. The Government rightly talk about ending the housing crisis, and about the need to make sure that there is enough housing stock available for every single person in this country. I would wager that every one of us would expect to see at least one toilet in every single one of those new houses. The last volume producer of sanitaryware anywhere in the country is in a little village called Armitage, which is not far from Lichfield. The Government have already done much to talk about the importance of industry, the importance of manufacturers like Armitage Shanks, and the importance of the skills that such companies need. We have already seen changes to the functional skills requirement for apprenticeships, which I wholeheartedly support, and that has led to an increase in the number of young people taking up that opportunity. It is a great step in the right direction, as is talking about vocational GCSEs.
As important as it is to see skills coming through, we also need to make sure that businesses provide the jobs in which those skills can be used, which is why I am so pleased that the Government were able to provide a £120 million rescue package for the ceramics industry—funding that is desperately needed to help the industry regenerate itself, look forward to the 21st century, decarbonise and continue to drive economic growth. However, that funding is no good if it is sitting in a bank account in Whitehall waiting to be delivered; we need to get it out of the door faster to ensure that both sides of the equation of manufacturing skills—the manufacturers and the skills—are working hand in hand. Will the Minister have a conversation with her colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure that we are leaving no stone unturned to push that funding out the door? We need to get it into the ceramics industry so that it can provide jobs, and so that the skills we are trying to build can be pushed forward into companies and help drive economic growth in every postcode in the country, but especially in WS15.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate—much like in Yorkshire, in the Isle of Wight west is best. Too many people’s vision of manufacturing is the dark satanic mills of the past, but in Calder Valley that is not what it looks like; it is robotics, advanced materials and precision engineering. How can we provide the skilled workers for those industries without the proper training?
Too many industrial communities have been told that decline was inevitable—a poverty of ambition since Thatcher—but in Calder Valley, manufacturing employs about 16% of the workforce. Twenty years ago, that figure was 25%, but we can go the other way. When we lose manufacturing jobs, we lose skills, confidence and opportunities in an area, and we lose the sense that a young person can build a good life whatever they choose to do. A manufacturing wage is about 8% above the average wage, and we need a skilled workforce, particularly when one looks at the NEET crisis. About 8.5% of 18 to 24-year-olds in Calder Valley are on unemployment benefits and not in training, but the industrial sector’s workforce has aged faster than the rest of the workforce; the average age is over 50. That is not sustainable.
One managing director in my constituency started at 16 on a YTS. He joined me in 11 Downing Street last year. That is the kind of success story that skilled manufacturing jobs can bring, and that is what I want to see more of in Calder Valley, but manufacturing needs to feel like an option. Denford engineering in my constituency makes equipment for schools and runs the international STEM racing competition. Its chief executive asked me, “Why don’t we talk about design and manufacturing rather than design and technology, which is less meaningful to people?” It is that kind of shift that we need in order to get people to think about the future of manufacturing and consider it as an option.
In Calder Valley, we have just secured the Yorkshire robotics adoption hub, hosted by the brilliant West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services in Brighouse. It will work with more than 300 manufacturers to get them ready to work with robotics and the skills of the future. It is those kinds of innovations that can give us those skills. I ask the Minister: what more can we do to supply that confidence in business and build skills for the next generation?
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate. I am particularly fond of this discussion because, in a slightly tenuous link, my late grandad Bill Dibley was born and raised on the Isle of Wight and went on to become an electrical engineer. When I was about five, he made me my first circuit board to play with, which ignited my love of innovation. I am sure he would be delighted that we are here supporting the great legacy of technical skills in the Isle of Wight and the whole UK. I am grateful to private companies in my constituency such as BAE Systems, which, in its Academy for Skills and Knowledge, trains apprentices for both its own organisation and the surrounding supply chain.
I want to make two quick key points. Under the EU, areas such as mine in Lancashire were among the biggest beneficiaries of skills support and funding, but now, as schemes such as the apprenticeship brokerage service go only to mayoral areas, which Lancashire is not, we risk losing so much of our progress. I have been encouraged by the Prime Minister’s focus on reindustrialisation and this Government’s commitment to growth in every postcode, but we need to ensure that it means exactly that.
I also have a lot of food manufacturing companies in my heavily rural constituency. One of those is Baxi, which typically would look to take on around 30 apprentices each year. However, this year, because of wider financial pressures, it has not been able to take on any. We must address skills shortages, not just by encouraging more young people into manufacturing, but by ensuring that businesses have the means to invest in them.
I am grateful that this Government believe deeply in technical education, and we know that the public are with us, because 93% of people believe that manufacturing is important for growing the UK’s economy, but we have to ensure that the cost of doing business is not too high to develop those skills, and that all parts of the UK are supported to contribute to building our skills base here.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate.
I regularly meet fantastic employers in Glasgow who want to employ young people, but the college places to train them in the skills those businesses need are not available. That is an absolute failure and is making Glasgow poorer, despite the fact that we have fantastic opportunities in manufacturing. Glasgow has a city deal through the Glasgow city region. That is something to build on for regional devolution, because it is local employers, local businesses and local colleges that understand how best to get the skills in place to grow the local and regional economy, but we have an absolutely botched reform of local government being carried out in Scotland in the minute—the SNP is making a complete mess of it. The Prime Minister was right when he spoke in Scotland on Friday about the need to get power out of Edinburgh and into the city regions and the regions of Scotland, so we can help businesses to thrive, give young people the opportunities we want them to have, and seize Scotland’s great future.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate.
I start with some numbers we should celebrate: UK manufacturing produces output worth £220 billion and supports 2.6 million jobs, paying on average 8% more than the rest of the economy, and it accounts for 42% of our exports and almost half of all business research and development. It is a sector of skilled, well-paid careers that we are rightly proud of, but it is also a sector that could do more if it had more of the skilled people it needs.
Skills England identifies advanced manufacturing as having the third highest proportion of skills shortage vacancies of any sector, and projects that 84% of the additional jobs in its priority occupations to 2035 will need qualifications at level 4 or above. The businesses in Cambridgeshire that kindly shared their insights with me in advance of this debate described problems that I suspect Members from every part of the country will recognise. One electronics firm, Cap Air, told me that although electronics is the largest manufacturing sub-sector in our region, the county is a dead spot for the sort of technical education it needs, with training necessitating travel outside the county. There is no occupational standard for much of the work the company does. As Cap Air put it,
“You cannot fund a course for a job the system does not recognise.”
That is a national problem for Skills England, but lack of local provision is something places could fix for themselves. I hope the Prime Minister’s well-known enthusiasm for devolution extends to giving areas like ours the skills, powers and capital funding to do it.
Another manufacturer in my constituency, ZEISS, which makes electron microscopes, makes a related point about the future. Advanced manufacturing now combines traditional mechanical and electrical engineering with automation, software, data and AI, and we need to build those capabilities now before they become critical shortages, not just fill today’s vacancies. In 2024-25, there were over 46,000 starts in engineering and manufacturing in England, but level 2 manufacturing starts fell by 80% in the five years to 2023-24. That is a significant problem in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced, so we welcome the Government’s move to a more flexible growth and skills levy, but we recognise that progress has been slow. Apprenticeship units have been available since April, yet the skills charity Enginuity found that a fifth of manufacturing SMEs have never heard of them, and only one in 10 think that they will fill their skills gaps. On the Department’s own forecasts, apprenticeship spending is due to fall after this year, even as levy receipts rise.
Employers tell me that the system needs to be straightforward for employers to use, responsive to changing industrial needs, and attractive to young people as a genuine alternative to university, but too often it is none of those things for smaller firms. The apprenticeship model may work for large employers, but a firm of 20 cannot easily release a young employee for two or sometimes three days a week to a college that might be miles away. It is also difficult for them to carry the paperwork that comes with. Another manufacturer in my constituency, Domino Printing Sciences, pointed out that employers pay into the levy but cannot use it to cover much of the real cost of employing and developing an apprentice, as the funding bands for many engineering apprenticeships simply do not cover the cost of delivery. As a result, we have employers with skills gaps, young people who need good routes into careers, and apprenticeship funding that is not fully used.
As hon. Members might expect me to say, there is a lot that the Government could take from Liberal Democrat policy. We would like to introduce skills tax credits with enhanced relief for priority sectors to reflect the fact that skills are an investment. We would also establish structures for skills co-operatives—I know the Prime Minister likes co-operatives—so that smaller firms can pool training resources and even rotate apprentices between them. We would also expand higher technical routes, such as higher national certificates, higher national diplomas, foundation degrees and higher apprenticeships, building on the investment already made in FE colleges and institutes of technology.
We would like Skills England to be a truly independent body with employers at its heart. Already in its short life, it has been moved from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions. It remains an Executive agency in that Department and is not the independent voice for skills that employers really need, so I urge the Government to look again at giving it genuine independence.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, levy receipts are forecast to be £4.5 billion this year, but after the devolved nations’ share and England’s £3.3 billion budget, about £700 million will not be returned to the skills system but will stay with the Treasury. On the Government’s own spending predictions, that will rise to about £1 billion next year. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the money raised for skills is spent on skills and is not clawed back by the Treasury?
Secondly, will the review of funding bands address the shortfall of up to £8,000 per apprentice that employers face in engineering and manufacturing? Thirdly, will the Minister press Skills England to develop occupational standards for a wider variety of manufacturing roles, such as printed circuit board assembly, which the system currently cannot see? Nyobolt, a battery manufacturer in my constituency, put it well: the opportunity now is to make sure the skills pipeline develops at the same pace as the technology.
Skills, like manufacturing investment itself, require multi-year, long-horizon decisions. Industry needs a long-term, stable plan from the Government, and I hope the Minister will tell us that it is coming.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing time in this House for this really important topic. I have heard a lot of very good speakers, and I agree with their sentiment. Although we may not always agree on every policy issue, I do agree that our best years are ahead of us.
Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the local enterprise partnership in the west midlands. I remember my first ever meeting, in which I spoke to the chair of an FE college, who told me that the time between what his college could deliver and what businesses said that they wanted was about three years. That told me two things, as a small business owner: that the skills landscape is incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, and that demand plays a huge role. I will talk about demand in a bit.
The UK’s manufacturing sector is hugely important, accounting for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employing roughly 2.6 million people. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the Lunar Society, because I was a member of a modern-day Lunar Society—in fact, I helped to write its constitution. I was pleased that she put that on the record.
I am the proud Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East, a constituency in the heart of the west midlands. We are also a UK manufacturing powerhouse, because we are the home of Jaguar Land Rover. The west midlands remains the UK’s leading manufacturing region, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that. The region contributes £10.4 billion and employs more than 200,000 people.
The shadow Chancellor and I recently visited Rolls-Royce, which has a huge facility in the west midlands. I invite the Minister to visit it, because it does a huge amount of work. I know it is said that the UK does not manufacture anything anymore, but I reject that; I do not think it is true. I saw at first hand engines and control panels being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects, and met a number of apprentices, who showed how important apprenticeships are. I am proud that the previous Government over 14 years created more than 5.2 million apprenticeships.
As shadow Minister of State for Education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, further education colleges and others who are very concerned about skills shortages in the manufacturing sector. In July, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament with Enginuity, a charity focused on closing skills gaps in the UK’s engineering and manufacturing sector. It was clear from the businesses we met that they expect the Government to do much more to help support manufacturing, and help engineering businesses to recruit the best talent. We spoke at length about some of the findings in Enginuity’s recent “Mind the Gap” report. Its research found that around half of surveyed SMEs reported skills-related issues in the past year, with 36% experiencing skills gaps and difficulty recruiting workers. It estimates that the failure to plug that gap in manufacturing skills costs the UK economy £5.2 billion annually. That is clearly an important area that needs to be fixed, we must all agree.
I would like to know about the Minister’s relationship with the DFE and how she works to ensure that the advanced manufacturing workforce is skilled, not just at NEET-level but throughout careers and lifelong learning. I am confident about the future of the UK’s manufacturing sector. It is a growing industry that will offer varied and exciting jobs for the future, but there are significant challenges coming manufacturers’ way as a result of Government policy, which we already see.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote in The Times about the prospect of Britain facing
“economic catastrophe and moral failure”
because a generation of young workers has been written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment is now 16.4%. When the Conservatives left office, it was 14.2%, so there has been a significant increase. There are currently one million 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing that number, because we will support them in the right policies; unfortunately, however, it is the view of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Government’s approach to tackling that grave injustice is entirely wrong.
I have talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors such as manufacturing is a result of the Government’s policy platform. I did not once hear Labour Members talk about the impact of national insurance, tax and the reduction in the national insurance threshold, or that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much that is has become challenging for businesses to take them on. Where they are employed, the opportunity cost means that fewer apprentices are taken on, as a result of such policies. It is obvious to us that the Government’s tax policies are making it harder for young people to get into good jobs.
That is not just the view of the Opposition. Huw Pill, chief economist at the Bank of England, agrees that higher national insurance contributions and the Government’s increase in the national living and minimum wage have priced out entry-level workers, many of them young people.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Could the shadow Minister set out exactly, in pounds and pence, how much less he thinks apprentices and young people should be paid today than they are under the current minimum wage?
Saqib Bhatti
I reject the framing of the question. [Laughter.] No one finds youth unemployment funny. Many business owners talk to me about what happens when a young apprentice is interviewed. They say that if they have a 25-year-old with experience versus an 18-year-old with no experience, that hinders the prospects of hiring them. That is the reality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is a conscientious MP, so I encourage him to pose that question to his small business owners in the way I framed it.
Saqib Bhatti
No, I am going to carry on. When met with reality, the Government’s plans in this space fall far too short. The Government have made lots of noise about recruiting targets. I just noticed that the Government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the same or a different version of the announcement made in a Government press release in August 2025, which mentioned
“40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers”?
Government by press release is one thing but recycling old press releases is something else. Those apprentices deserve better.
There has also been no mention of the impact of the Government’s fiscal policies. Just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline saying job vacancies are at their lowest in 12 years. There are 176,000 fewer jobs now than when Labour took office.
Members have mentioned the Education Secretary’s ambition to close off academic options and offer more vocational options for the 14-to-16 age group. I am deeply sceptical of that policy, and the Opposition are calling for an evidence-based approach. When a previous Labour Government introduced similar reforms, fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. We believe that plenty of people who would have been able to get into higher-quality jobs were funnelled off at a lower age, so we are deeply sceptical. The policy announcement is welcome, but we are yet to see significant detail. Many of the headteachers I spoke to last week asked how their teachers will be trained to deliver vocational subjects and where the funding will come from.
We are incredibly proud of the reforms instituted by the previous Conservative Government, which have meant that England’s education delivery is among the best and most resilient in the world, according to the programme for international student assessment rankings. When I meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they laud the fact that a knowledge-rich curriculum has helped young people to gain critical and analytical skills, including in numeracy. We are really worried that some of the Education Secretary’s announcements will undermine opportunities for young people.
The criticism comes not just from the Opposition. Jon White, the chief financial officer at building materials firm Huws Gray, has said that employers are struggling with a lack of incentives to hire younger people. He pointed to the Government’s narrowing of the gap in respect of the national minimum wage, which I have alluded to, and said that they should change the rules in respect of how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy. I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy.
Making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important, which is why we have pledged to halve employer national insurance for young people aged 21 to 24, to help them get to into work. We have also offered more incentives to small businesses to take on young people. Small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy and the high street, and they, not big businesses, are the greatest employers of young people across the country. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people; I would welcome the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate and making such a strong case for manufacturing skills, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. As he set out, the Isle of Wight punches above its weight in advanced manufacturing. Businesses including Wight Shipyard, Diverse Marine and GKN Aerospace demonstrate the breadth of modern British manufacturing, from shipbuilding and aerospace to clean energy, defence and precision engineering. My hon. Friend is right that this is not simply about preserving Britain’s industrial heritage; it is about building the industries, supply chains and skilled careers of the future.
I particularly welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on the new Large Structures Innovation Centre and Isle of Wight College’s specialist centre for engineering and advanced manufacturing training. Investment in facilities and innovation must go hand in hand with investment in people, so that employers have access to workers with the skills they need, and local people can benefit from the opportunities being created.
My hon. Friend was also right to recognise the strengths of Derby, from rail and automotive to aerospace and nuclear power. Alongside the Team Derby initiative, those strengths demonstrate the benefits of bringing together industry, skills and investment to support growth.
As we have heard, across the UK manufacturing contributed £229 billion to the economy last year and supported 2.5 million jobs, with advanced manufacturing alone supporting around 770,000 jobs. But we need to prepare for the future: 36% of the manufacturing workforce is aged over 50, and Skills England projects demand for around 148,000 workers in priority occupations in advanced manufacturing by 2035, reflecting both growth and the need to replace those who leave the sector. That is why skills are central to our approach to growth in every postcode. We are investing more than £1 billion in sector skills packages, including £182 million for engineering, to strengthen technical training and build the workforce needed by advanced manufacturing and other growth-driving sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West made an important wider point. As well as creating the skilled workforces that businesses need to grow, we need to ensure that young people have the opportunities they need to start, stay and succeed in high-demand sectors. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), talked about youth unemployment; I remind him that between 2021 and 2024 the number of young people not in employment, education or training rose by a quarter of a million and the Conservatives did nothing. That is why we are reforming vocational routes for young people, including apprenticeships and technical education, and investing in technical excellence colleges, strengthening careers education and expanding work experience to help young people to move from education into skilled employment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, we need clear technical pathways that begin before young people make crucial choices and continue into further education, apprenticeships and skilled work. That starts with technical education from age 14, on an equal footing with academic education, to help more young people to access technical qualifications alongside their GCSEs, careers guidance and relevant work experience.
Lilian Greenwood
I will not because I am short on time. If I have time later, I will.
We have also announced new vocational GCSEs to give young people greater choice and equip them with practical knowledge and skills. After GCSEs, young people need routes that are easy to understand and valued by employers. This week is T-level week; these qualifications in engineering and manufacturing combine specialist classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students experience of the workplace and a route into skilled employment, an apprenticeship or further study.
From 2028, V-levels in engineering design and engineering manufacturing will provide a broader applied route, while occupational certificates will offer a two-year route towards skilled roles such as engineering operative, autocare technician and welder. Foundation certificates will help students who need additional preparation before they progress to level 3 study. Together, the reforms will provide greater choice and clearer progression into manufacturing careers.
Gareth Snell
I declare an interest as a governor of City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college. The previous Government decimated the BTEC programme, creating the gap that V-levels are filling, but V-levels are going to be short qualifications as opposed to larger qualifications that mirror BTECs. Given that the Department is looking at the roll-out of future V-levels, will the Minister consider making them a large qualification that could be studied independently—rather than alongside A-levels, or requiring three for a university application—as a way to make the breadth of opportunity mirror BTECs while keeping the values of the V-levels that the Government are going to try to introduce?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole point is that we want to offer young people a range of options and choices.
Apprenticeships will remain central to our offer because they allow people to earn while they learn, and help employers to develop the skills that they need. I know there are calls for the maximum funding band levels to be reassessed in certain occupational areas, and we are working closely with the sector and Skills England to determine how best to use all available funding sources, based on robust evidence of cost of delivery.
Transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy is giving employers greater flexibility and supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New apprenticeship units will also help the system to respond more quickly to changing skills needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for recognising that apprenticeship units in battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly, and mechanised welding were developed by Skills England in just three months, following consultation with employers and sector experts. I am sure the Skills Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the dedicated support that Skills England has established.
We are also increasing support for employers. We fully fund apprenticeship training for employers of all sizes for eligible young apprentices under 25, while smaller employers will receive a £2,000 hiring payment when they recruit an apprentice who is under 25. That support matters, particularly to smaller manufacturers, which are vital to local supply chains but can find it harder to meet the initial cost of recruiting and supporting an apprentice.
Alongside clearer routes and strong apprenticeships, colleges need the specialist facilities, equipment and teaching expertise required by modern manufacturing. That is why we have established four advanced manufacturing technical excellence colleges, including the one my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) highlighted in her city. They are part of a wider network of 29 technical excellence colleges, representing an investment of £295 million, that is expected to benefit more than 100,000 learners by the end of this Parliament. The colleges will provide advanced facilities, expert teaching and training shaped by employer demand. Through a hub-and-spoke approach, they will share expertise with other providers, thereby strengthening technical education beyond their own campuses.
Perran Moon
The announcements over the past two months relating to post-14 skills have been largely targeted at mayoral strategic authorities. Some 48% of the country is not in a mayoral strategic authority, and Cornwall never will be. Does the Minister agree that funding and flexibility for post-14 skills need to be spread across every postcode, not just in mayoral strategic authorities?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was going to say, which is that a key part of our approach is about shifting power, funding and accountability away from Westminster. We will work with mayoral and strategic authorities to shape their local skills systems and support economic growth in their regions. I assure my hon. Friend that that will apply to Cornwall, just as it will apply to the opportunity to work with our mayors in the west midlands, west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire, as colleagues asked about.
We want to design locally tailored, vocationally focused pathways for each region. Strategic authorities are well placed to bring together employers, schools and colleges, to strengthen the links between education and work, and to help to broker relevant work experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) highlighted, they can build on existing successful partnerships such as that between Nottingham Trent University and West Notts college. They can connect skills decisions with their understanding of local investment, workforce demand and the needs of employers. That really matters, because the opportunities available on the Isle of Wight are not the same as those in Derby, Stoke-on-Trent, Mansfield, Lichfield, Cornwall, Doncaster, Portsmouth, Wolverhampton, Lancashire, Alloa and Grangemouth, Taunton and Wellington, Glasgow, Cambridgeshire or Meriden and Solihull. Local leaders can shape delivery around the strengths and needs of their economies—I hope the devolved Government in Scotland have listened carefully to hon. Members’ points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West rightly highlighted the success of manufacturing on the Isle of Wight and the importance of investing in the workforce that will sustain it. The businesses that hon. Members have described demonstrate that world-class advanced manufacturing can thrive and create skilled jobs throughout the country. But that is only half the job; investing in the skills that power them is what turns ambition into long-term economic success. That is already visible on the Isle of Wight, showing what is possible. Our task now is to ensure that more people, particularly young people in all parts of the country, have the skills and opportunities to be part of that success. I have not had a chance to address a number of questions raised by colleagues, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister for Skills will listen to their representations and perhaps write to them on any specifics.
Richard Quigley
I thank the Minister for her response and Members for their engagement—with the exception of the shadow Minister, who appears to be in cloud cuckoo land. We should all be excited about the shared enthusiasm for growing and nurturing our manufacturing skills sector. The call to action today is for us all to make apprenticeships as exciting and desirable as university and say that it is okay to learn a trade.
I look forward to tutoring colleagues from all parties so that they too can create a powerhouse of manufacturing skills in their constituencies, through world-class businesses and thriving skills support groups for education establishments helping to develop the next generation of engineers and manufacturers. I suspect they may find it harder than we make it look on the Isle of Wight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered manufacturing skills.
Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems
(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
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered long duration electricity storage systems.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am glad to have been able to bring forward this debate on long duration electricity storage systems. I would like to focus on pump storage and the cost-benefit of hosting that technology in the highlands of Scotland.
The highlands and islands hope to benefit from the new Prime Minister’s growth in every postcode plan, however we do not have a defence, artificial intelligence, tech or financial industry to rely on. Our major industry is tourism, which suffers from a short season and low pay in hospitality. It is a struggling industry.
I recently wrote to the Prime Minister and laid out some harrowing facts. Remote Scotland has a 30% higher cost of living and a 10% lower income than urban Scotland. We have seen a dramatic drop in school rolls and a 71% increase in the number of people over the age of 75. I represent Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire and it would be difficult to find another part of the UK with a greater interest in renewables.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
To give the hon. Gentleman encouragement, we see the incredible potential for this in Northern Ireland, where a £100 million joint venture on Islandmagee is set to build a massive 150 MW storage facility capable of powering 36,000 homes. Does the hon. Member agree the Government must aggressively support those multi-day storage systems right across the United Kingdom, working hand in hand with devolved nations to modernise our grid infrastructure?
Mr MacDonald
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. There is not enough in it for the communities to benefit from. Pump storage seems to be as good a way of providing electricity that we could find.
In the highlands, we have the wind, water and geography that make the area so important for our national energy system. We have been producing hydroelectricity for the rest of the country for generations and we now have the opportunity to store much more of it. The highlands already generate 12 times the amount of electricity they need, but we have one of the highest levels of fuel poverty in Britain. Go figure, as my children would say.
When Alex Salmond was First Minister of Scotland, he declared that Scotland could become the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”. Yes, the hills of Scotland are covered in wind turbines, but they are manufactured abroad and are often owned by overseas utilities. From a multi-billion pound industry, Scotland’s communities got only £30 million of community benefit last year and the highlands got only £7 million. That is just £30 per head of population in the highlands.
The highlands already generate almost 8 GW of renewable electricity per year; roughly a third from hydroelectricity and two thirds from onshore wind. Even before factoring in pump storage, we play an important role in the electrification of the UK. I have said in this House before that I want the highlands to properly benefit from the enormous value of their natural resources. I was hopeful about onshore wind investment and the jobs and opportunities it could bring, but in practice that has been minimal. The proposed pump storage projects are now the only remaining chance I can see to bring proper money into my left-behind part of Britain.
Why does electricity storage really matter? Long duration storage has an important role in our energy future and the highlands have a particular ability to help deliver it. We need to be able to store electricity when there is plenty of it and to use it when we need it. Batteries play an important role in managing shorter periods, but we need technology that is capable of supplying electricity for much longer stretches.
Pump storage is a proven technology, capable of providing large amounts of electricity for long periods. These are long-life infrastructure assets, which are expected to operate for more than a century. They use electricity to pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir; when electricity is required, water is released through the turbines. As people can imagine, with our geography the highlands is very well placed for these assets. Our lochs, hills and mountains allow us to create the height differences that pump storage requires. The technical term is hydraulic head. In simple terms, the greater the height difference between the reservoirs, the more energy that can be produced with the same amount of water.
This summer, Ofgem announced that it has provisionally approved three pump storage sites in the highlands: Coire Glas, near Invergarry; Loch Kemp, near Loch Ness; and Lochan na h-Earba, which is quite near Newtonmore. These three sites will produce a collective 4 GW of electricity, which is three times as much electricity as Greater Manchester uses. The development costs will be over £5 billion, which will make the entire scheme by far the biggest ever infrastructure investment ever seen in the highlands. There are also three more pump storage sites that are keen to get Ofgem’s go-ahead: Loch Fearna, near Invergarry; Loch Ericht; and Loch na Cathrach, on Loch Ness.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Member mentioned Lochan na h-Earba, which is in my constituency. The number of projects included in the Ofgem list at the moment, which he mentioned, and the number of projects that we could build and get benefit from differ quite significantly. And in addition to the possible projects in the highlands, there are some in the lowlands as well, in Dumfriesshire and other areas, which could benefit from Government investment, time and effort to get them onstream. Does he agree that we absolutely need to maximise the use of the extremely reliable and extremely well-tested technology of hydro?
Mr MacDonald
I think that hydro is a far better source of electricity than wind. It has much less visual impact and it is available when we really need it; we have quite a lot of wind, but it is obviously dependent on the wind blowing.
The future energy scenarios report of the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, for 2025 suggested that Britain could need between 13.2 GW and 16.6 GW of long duration storage by 2050. The six sites in the highlands that I have mentioned will go a long way towards providing that storage.
The second point I wish to make is about the implication for the electricity market and the people paying their bills. One aspect of this is the way that the wholesale electricity market works. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but gas still sets the price for electricity when gas-fired generation is needed, even at a time when a great deal of electricity is coming from renewable sources.
Mains gas is 8p a kilowatt at the moment, whereas electricity is 26p a kilowatt, or more than three times as much. Broadly speaking, people in rural areas across the whole of the UK do not have mains gas. In my patch, only those people in Inverness city and Dingwall receive mains gas.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about his constituents who are off-gas; likewise, I have a number of constituents in my Carlisle constituency who are off-gas. Recently the committee of a village hall—Hallbankgate village hall—came to talk to me about their ambition to move off the heating oil system and instal solar, but storing the energy—the heat—in a sand battery. I do not know whether he has come across that before, but does he agree that whatever the scale or technology—be it pump or small sand batteries—the Government’s long-term storage strategy needs to be technology-neutral, so that we maximise as many of these different technologies as possible?
Mr MacDonald
Until I received the hon. Lady’s email yesterday, I had never heard of sand batteries; sand is not one of the big features of my constituency. Nevertheless, I agree that we should consider all sorts of technologies. The bottom line is that Britain will not transition to electricity when it costs three times as much as carbon fuel imported gas does.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman states that the electricity price is considerably higher than the gas price. He made the argument that gas is setting the price for electricity, but can he explain why the price of gas was so low compared to the price of electricity?
Mr MacDonald
I will briefly attempt to do so, but there is a much more eloquent gentleman here today—the Minister for Energy, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—who would do better. [Laughter.] As I understand it, the tariffs and the distribution charges go on the electricity—the home-produced renewable electricity—and not on the carbon fuel imported gas, which in my opinion is the wrong way round. However, I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us and provide a bit more detail.
Another problem is constraint payments—when we are paying to stop renewable electricity being produced. When the electricity network cannot carry power from where it is being produced to where it is needed, the systems operator has to intervene. That means paying wind farms to reduce their output. The National Audit Office says that constraint costs reached £1.9 billion over the last year, with an expectation that the figure could be as high as £8 billion by 2030. That is a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money and hopefully pump storage will reduce it.
What is the opportunity for Scotland? Pump storage sites are very expensive to build and, historically, it has been difficult for developers to secure private finance, because future electricity market revenues are uncertain. The UK Government have introduced the cap and floor scheme to unlock investment in this type of infrastructure. The floor provides a minimum level of revenue certainty and, if a project’s market revenues fall below that agreed floor, support is provided to cover the gap, funded through consumer bills. The cap limits the excess revenue. If a project earns above the agreed level, excess returns are returned to the consumer through lower network charges.
There is an opportunity for Scotland to develop a serious industry around pump storage. The benefits are not just the electricity stored at the end of construction. There is the civil engineer, the tunnel and the electrical equipment required—billions of pounds’ worth. Can we ensure that a significant amount of that supply chain work will remain in Scotland or even in Britain? Are we educating our young with the skills they need to be employed in these multi-billion pound infrastructures? I really do not believe we are.
I want to move on to community benefits. Do the communities impacted by wind farms and pump storage sites welcome them? They absolutely do not. I have attended hostile meetings of the convention of community councils with hundreds of attendees, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Scottish Government Ministers have declined to attend. There is very much a feeling in the highlands that this is being done to us. If locals had jobs at these projects, if legacy housing were built rather than temporary modular constructions, and if the communities got significant community benefit or, even better, were shareholders, I guarantee that there would be much better support.
When we ask communities to host major infrastructure, it should be beneficial to them. That is particularly important for the highlands, where our fuel costs are prohibitive, major developments can be very visible, the costs of providing public sector services are high, and we have a serious problem with the availability of housing and opportunities for young people to stop them emigrating to the cities. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recent proposal to bring pump storage hydro within its updated community benefit guidance, but I suspect that it will result in an underwhelming consequence.
Glen Earrach is a model case study. It has not yet received Ofgem’s provisional approval, but it is an example of the scale of opportunity we have. It has an expected operating life of approximately 125 years. It has 34 GWh of storage capacity and around 1.8 GW of generating capacity, and its hydraulic head of 500 metres makes good use of the geography of the site to store large amounts of electricity efficiently. The project is committed to putting 5% of its annual gross margin into a community wealth fund. The estimate is that the fund could receive £20 million a year. Compared with the highlands only getting £7 million, that is significant. The Highland Council said that the fund could be worth around £3 billion in today’s money over the 125-year operating period. Glen Earrach has bravely volunteered a model where its host community will share in its success. I strongly urge the Government to recognise it as a model that can be adopted by other developments.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a typically excellent and cogent argument for stronger community benefit from these projects. Does he agree that a cousin of pump storage technology is tidal range energy? The west of England has the second highest tidal range in the world, and it will be a missed opportunity if we do not exploit tidal range energy, just as it will be if we do not develop the community benefit programmes that he proposes.
Mr MacDonald
I have always believed that tide is probably the single best energy source, because it is entirely predictable and operates well in the estuaries where our cities are, so we do not need to transform it. I am not up to date, but it is something that we should really concentrate on.
Graham Leadbitter
There are also huge opportunities for geothermal energy, particularly in Aberdeenshire, but also in other parts of Scotland. The Government could focus more attention on geothermal and tidal stream. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that sentiment?
Mr MacDonald
Hopefully, we will have all these different renewable energy sources coming through, but geothermal is a big one.
We have an enormous opportunity in rural Scotland to facilitate the electrification of Britain, and long-duration storage can help us make better use of the renewable electricity we generate. It can improve the security of supply and support a more efficient electricity system. Rural Scotland plays a role in enabling Britain to achieve its net zero ambitions. However, the impact on our communities is currently almost entirely negative. It is like telling the inhabitants of Norway or Aberdeen in the 1970s that there will be an oil and gas boom, but the locals should not benefit from it. As things stand, these multibillion-pound pump storage sites will produce few local jobs, no legacy housing and minimal community benefit for the people of the highlands. That is completely unacceptable.
Pump storage sites are an essential part of our national energy portfolio, and they are great for Britain. Let us make them great for the highlands, too.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing the debate. He and I have talked about this issue many times, but I never tire of it. As he rightly said in his speech, it is an incredibly exciting opportunity for the highlands and an important opportunity for the country.
I always know that winter is coming when the hon. Gentleman’s jumpers make a reappearance. I am a big fan of them, and it is great to see him here today. He is a great champion of his constituency, which covers an enormous part of Scotland. However, having run the Arisaig to Mallaig half-marathon, I would say that he has a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency.
This has been an interesting debate. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points about long duration energy storage, but we have also heard about its cousins, such as pumped hydro and sand batteries, which is about storing energy through heat rather than in more conventional ways. It is important to be agnostic about the new technologies that are coming forward all the time and becoming ever more developed. We need a significant amount of flexibility in our system to be able to store and utilise the clean power that we are generating when we need it most. We should be open to a whole range of technologies, so I am very happy to have more conversations about all of them.
The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the importance of long duration electricity storage. Over decades we have built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, both offshore and onshore, but we have not kept pace with being able to store that electricity for when we need it most, which has meant that our electricity system cannot get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to spend considerable amounts of money on constraining that renewable capacity, because we did not build the grid. We have not built the necessary storage, so our transition to being able to deploy clean power when we need it requires much more flexibility, which comes from long duration energy storage.
I recently visited the pumped hydro project in Cruachan, which follows a well-trodden path of technology that we have deployed for a very long time. Pumped hydro lasts for a long time, is an important part of how we deliver long duration energy storage and will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded-to list for window 1 of the cap and floor scheme. That was a significant milestone for the sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)—there is a double act of Members with long constituency names——about the ambition on long duration energy storage, but I would also say that this is the first long duration energy storage we have built in Britain in 40 years, and it is a significant amount: 7.5 gigawatts of capacity is not nothing. We remain really ambitious. He is right to say that future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from a 40-year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country.
Ofgem has provisionally selected 16 projects. It has made minded-to decisions, but a consultation process is running. Three projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half the LDES capacity. Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of the year. When they are delivered, they will reduce costs for consumers by maximising our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which is the part of the constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind; it comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. If we deploy LDES in the way we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation.
I understand that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage—we have had this conversation many times—but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects. Their construction in itself creates a significant number of jobs over several years. That is expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project that he mentioned, Loch Earba, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five-year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. It is estimated that another project, Loch Kemp, will create 370 jobs in the highlands at peak construction. It has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and to investing in projects such as the Caledonian canal and local roads.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly made the point about local supply chains and making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of those projects in local communities. The single most important thing my Department has been driving in two and a half years in relation to the construction of these projects is no longer to be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually care about industrial strategy. I have been very clear with all developers that expect to receive public money that they should look at every single part of their procurement to ensure, even down to the smallest contracts, that they procure locally as much as possible. I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critical because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Mr MacDonald
The Minister mentioned one of the pump storage sites and the £7.5 million investment, which is a one-off payment. For example, Glen Earrach is offering £20 million a year for 125 years, inflation-linked. That is what we have to move to: an amount of money being invested year after year that is agreed and controlled by the Government. What does the Minister think of that?
Michael Shanks
Let me come to that point, because we have discussed that before. My starting point is that communities who host infrastructure should feel the benefits of it, and they should be meaningful benefits. We consulted on how we will deliver both community benefits and shared-ownership opportunities for communities. We have put £1 billion pounds into Great British Energy to make sure that there is the financial capacity for communities to take up that shared-ownership offer. We will continue to push that.
I have spoken before about the need for us to balance that though; ultimately, all the costs of building these projects is borne by consumers across the country. The hon. Gentleman and I share the objective of bringing down bills as much as possible. There is a balance to be struck and I do not pretend that is easy because his community—he is right to champion them—will rightly want more and more community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects. I need first to ensure that they are economical and will be built, because that is important for the national interest, and secondly that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone. There is a balance to be struck, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will always want us to go further, but I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed to provide not huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but just the right amount to make them viable. That is the key thing; the cap and floor scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, so there is a risk that we end up using consumer bills to subsidise projects if we go too far. That does not mean that I do not share his ambition, and I have been very clear with developers that we should see genuine community benefits coming forward and that those should be meaningful for communities.
Graham Leadbitter
Very briefly, I am raising these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Government as well, but while DESNZ and Ofgem have a role in this, I think it is helpful for every organisation to be pushing the developers and saying, “What are you doing about the roads infrastructure? What are you doing about how you get people to and from the sites?” Projects represent big influxes of people into areas, while the local infrastructure can be just lane-and-a-half roads, with passing places and all that. Will the Minister commit to putting some pressure on those companies to invest in that?
Michael Shanks
I thought the hon. Member was going to conclude by asking whether I would commit to putting some pressure on the Scottish Government, which would be unlike him. But I agree with him, actually. I have had a number of really productive conversations with Stephen Gethins, Scotland’s Energy Minister, on exactly that topic of how we can make these projects work for local communities. If we can bring that local investment into roads and other infrastructure, it leaves that legacy that I think we all want to see in communities. It is also of benefit to the projects, which will need some investment in road infrastructure anyway.
In summing up, I want to pick out two issues. First, I really welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire’s recognition of the importance of long duration energy storage for our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that, for decades, we had a consensus on building renewables across Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, but we did not make the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect them. We are now paying the price for that.
Equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work in the system, giving us the flexibility to deploy that energy when we need it most and making sure that we are genuinely bringing cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills. It also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. The hon. Gentleman rightly recognised the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode. Energy policy does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of our industrial strategy.
We are building these extraordinarily important projects that will last for more than a century. There has to be some legacy for communities from those projects, and we have to bring people with us on this journey. I frequently say in this place in particular, but in the main Chamber as well, that we do need to build infrastructure as a country—that is important—but we should try to bring communities with us wherever we possibly can. Community benefits and real investment are a critical part of that.
The Scottish Government are clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but for the Scottish Government. I know that they share my ambition about the importance of both deploying long duration energy storage and community benefits. They have guidance on this matter, and we are working together on it.
Whether it is through community benefit funds, the bill discounts that we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure, or our ongoing work to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, while we might not get everything quite to the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from construction, from community benefits and from—I hope—a genuine lasting legacy.
Importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home-grown clean power that we need in the system, bring down bills for people and continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Heathrow Airport Expansion
(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
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank all my constituents in Putney who have written to me, attended public meetings and taken part in the recent consultation on Heathrow expansion. I am really grateful to have secured today’s debate, and for the opportunity to explain why the Mayor of London, so many London MPs and so many Londoners continue to oppose the enormous expansion of Heathrow, the third runway and all that comes with it. I am also grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aviation for engaging with the concerns that I and many others have raised.
The proposal on the table would significantly and adversely affect the health and wellbeing of 3 million people living near Heathrow, and there would be a 58% increase in flights. Under the expansion proposal, the number of flights would increase by 276,000 per year— 756 per day. This debate comes at an important moment in the decision-making process. It is only weeks since the Government’s consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement closed on 1 September, and we are only days before Heathrow launches its own consultation on its expansion plans on 27 October. However, Heathrow is consulting on expansion before the Government have completed the policy framework that would govern it. That is the wrong way round.
Before taking a decision of such magnitude, we should ask a simple question: knowing what we know now, would Parliament make the same decision today as it was asked to make when the Airport Commission reported and made the proposal in 2015? I do not believe that it would. In 2015, the Airport Commission’s case rested on assumptions about jobs, growth, aviation demand, sustainable aviation fuel, carbon reduction and regional economic benefits, but many of those assumptions have now been blown apart and look considerably weaker, so I am going to whizz through eight major things that have changed since 2015. I will also talk about three important things that have not changed since then.
First, I am going to focus on the major central justification for expansion: the economic case, which I believe has collapsed. The Government’s own figures tell a very different story from the one we were told a decade ago. In 2015, the Airports Commission estimated that expansion could boost GDP by £20 billion to £23 billion. Earlier this year, supporters of expansion were still citing figures of around £13 billion. However, the Department for Transport’s appraisal in the HENPS document estimates a GDP increase of just 0.03% to 0.05% by the 2050s—the equivalent of roughly £900 million to £1.5 billion over decades. The headline economic benefit used to justify Heathrow expansion has therefore fallen from £20 billion to perhaps little more than £1 billion. A project once sold as transformational would now deliver an impact that is barely measurable in the context of a £3 trillion economy. Those figures would raise serious questions for any major infrastructure project.
Secondly, I will talk about jobs. In 2015, the Airports Commission argued that a third runway could support about 70,000 new jobs across the UK by 2050, yet the Government’s own analysis suggests that many jobs would be relocated, rather than created. The DFT estimates that Heathrow expansion could draw around 21,400 jobs into the Heathrow area while contributing to the loss of approximately 15,200 jobs elsewhere in the UK. Moving jobs from one region to another is obviously not the same as creating new jobs.
Thirdly, the premise of spreading growth across the UK has changed. The Government cannot demonstrate that the growth generated would be genuinely additional. If jobs, passengers and investment are simply drawn from other airports and regions, Britain is not creating growth; it is just relocating it. Analysis by the New Economics Foundation suggests that Birmingham airport alone could lose around 7.5 million passengers annually by 2050, alongside approximately 9,500 jobs across the airport and its supply chains.
On devolution, No.10 North is going in one direction, but Heathrow expansion—being so concentrated on London and the south-east—would take us in another direction. At a time when Ministers rightly want to spread opportunity more evenly across the country, Heathrow expansion risks doing precisely the opposite.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful point. When he was the Mayor of Manchester, the Prime Minister warned many times that Heathrow expansion would suck the life out of regional airports. Does she agree that that is now more true than ever? The Prime Minister is also really into devolution. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is also against Heathrow expansion, so the Prime Minister should listen to our Mayor, too.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly.
Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies.
Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out.
Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much?
Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents.
Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction.
Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future.
The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s?
The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that?
When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.
Alex Sobel
One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.
Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected.
That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch.
As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits.
Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for setting the scene. She and I are good friends. I spoke to her before the debate; we have a difference of opinion on this issue, and I will outline the reasons why. I respect everybody else’s point of view, and I hope that others will respect mine.
The proposed expansion of Heathrow airport is expected to support some 108,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, making it a significant source of economic growth. The third runway would increase capacity, provide for more affordable travel and increase the reliability of flights. Across the UK, airports are recognising the need to plan ahead. I want to give some figures, ever mindful of how much I respect the opinion of the hon. Lady and other Members. Heathrow is the UK’s gateway to growth: it connects people and businesses from all parts of the country, including Belfast, to global opportunities, and it serves as the UK’s only hub airport.
The challenge is that Heathrow is operating at 99% capacity and has been for decades, which is why the third runway is imperative for the growth of this country. Indeed, it is bursting to grow. Heathrow continues to perform strongly, but passenger growth is now trailing the European average. Passenger growth at Heathrow is 1.9%, whereas the European average is 4.6%. Heathrow’s expansion is expected to add some £17 billion annually to the UK economy, and 60% of the economic benefits will occur outside London and the south-east. That is the reason why I am speaking in this debate as an MP for Northern Ireland: I want to put forward the case for how the third runway will benefit us in Northern Ireland. Whenever it comes to the Government here doing something centrally, it has to be for everybody’s advantage across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The £33 billion of private investment into Britain supports jobs, exports, manufacturing and economic growth at no cost to the taxpayer, so it is advantageous. The benefits begin well before the first flight, and the wider economic prize goes beyond conventional transport modelling. Heathrow’s expansion builds on an existing 1,100-business UK supply chain, creating opportunities for companies in every region of the country. By way of example, I mention Zaun in Wolverhampton, but there are many other companies across the United Kingdom that rely on Heathrow’s connectivity, including Durham-based Coltraco Ultrasonics.
For us in Northern Ireland, it is really important that we have the connectivity. Heathrow has stated:
“this is not a choice between the economy and the environment; it will deliver for both.”
If it can show that expansion can do that, that is something that must be considered. Heathrow has also said there was a 7.5% carbon reduction in air emissions last year compared with 2019. That is factual evidence. There has also been a 60% reduction to the noise footprint since the early 1990s. Again, I would say that that shows that there has been a commitment in relation to that.
Jim Shannon
As always, the hon. Lady makes a very helpful intervention. I would suggest that those who are looking at the expansion of the third runway at Heathrow have indicated that those are issues that they can address. We must give them the chance to do just that.
In Northern Ireland, plans have been proposed to increase the capacity of Belfast City airport, because we want to see growth in Belfast. It is the airport I normally use; others may use Belfast International airport. There is an opportunity. In discussions, an indication has been made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I know that growth in Belfast is helped by, connected with and part of the third runway at Heathrow.
The Minister is betwixt a rock and a hard place on this one, I suspect, but does he agree that we have to have a forward-thinking approach and support the infrastructure needed for future air travel? We are trying to increase connectivity, such as between Heathrow and Belfast. I see the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) is present, and he has ambitions for Doncaster airport as well.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Yesterday we had the amazing news that agreement had been reached to bring Doncaster Sheffield airport back into local public ownership. That will create jobs and growth and will be amazing for our area, in particular for NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and their challenges. It will give opportunities for cabin crew, ground staff and, potentially, pilots in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk about expansion of Heathrow, we must also consider the importance of the regional hubs and regional airports as we go forward and as part of a strategy?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman deserves some of the credit for his hard work in the time that he has been in this House on a way forward for Doncaster airport. He can take some credit, because it has been one of his primary objectives.
We must build for the future. We must support economic growth in the UK as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman just said, and no time is better to invest in such projects than right now. Heathrow airport expansion is not just a London issue; it is a vital national infrastructure project that is critical to strengthening our entire Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to promote that, concentrate on it and help it to happen.
The London-to-Belfast corridor is among the busiest domestic routes in the United Kingdom, yet our businesses and families face constant, crippling flight cancellations and slot constraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets. Our hope is that the third runway at Heathrow happens, along with the expansion of Belfast City airport, so that the two can grow together and provide for our businesses and families. Without any doubt, a third runway is urgently required to guarantee and protect vital regional slots for Northern Ireland, for Scotland, for Wales and for Doncaster, to ensure that every single corner of the United Kingdom benefits from global connectivity.
I will finish with this: the third runway will ensure connectivity throughout the UK, and it is essential that that is a material consideration. Often Heathrow expansion is talked about in terms of more holiday routes, but it is not just holiday routes; there are domestic connections as well, such as from Belfast City to London. Those who want to go further can take the holiday routes, and they are important, but for businesses based in Northern Ireland, reliable connections from London to Belfast are their lifeblood. We cannot afford to be cut off. For that reason, I say respectfully to right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber that I support the Heathrow extension. It will be beneficial for Northern Ireland. I see advantages—coming through jobs and opportunities for connection—to build this United Kingdom where there is the ability to grow it. I support this and I put the needs of Northern Ireland very much before all hon. Members present for their consideration.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I almost feel like just republishing a Hansard of one of the dozen debates we have already had on this subject over the past number of years. We just need to get real. The reason we are having this debate is that the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), when developing a speech for growth, wanted an example, and she just went for the third runway. At the moment, however, I cannot find anyone in Government who privately thinks, seriously, that it will go ahead. That is where we are at. This is the “Monty Python” dead parrot sketch all over again.
Given that we are having this debate, I will remind people, as I always do, what the third runway means in human terms for my constituents, because that is my job. This has been mentioned, but 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable by noise and air pollution. We think now that 17,000 people will be displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals. A number of schools will be closed. I held my first third runway meeting and set up the third runway action group in 1983, in Harlington school. We had to demolish and rebuild that school elsewhere because the noise and air pollution had made it impossible to teach in. This expansion will push the runway near to the school that we built some distance away. We are going to lose our schools. We are going to lose our whole community.
Before anyone votes on this issue, come down to Harmondsworth. Come and see the village. Members should not vote on this unless they have been there, because otherwise they will not know how this is devastating beautiful villages. Harmondsworth has just won London in Bloom. We have a church that is 1,000 years old; the barn of the medieval church, which we believe is the biggest in Europe, will be 50 yards from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are school pupils going to be taught?
On top of that, we have been breathing this poisoned air for more than a generation now. We have done survey after survey about the scale of respiratory problems and the cardiovascular impacts. Before anyone votes, come down there and talk to some of the people about what it means. People say, “Oh well, people will move.” We have generations of families who have lived there, and young families who have moved in. Why? Because Governments promised us that there will be no third runway. At one point in time, there was cross-party agreement. No wonder we feel betrayed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has set out all the arguments. The fact that we are even considering this issue in this debate is a monument to Heathrow’s lobbying capacity and the corporate capture of different political parties over time. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is generous with his support on a whole range of issues—but every one of the points that he raised, which are basically from the Heathrow briefing material, has been shot through completely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the economic benefit. In the Government’s own figures in the consultation, that has reduced 10 times, to 0.05% of GDP, and even that is now in doubt. On the number of jobs, when the fifth terminal was developed, we were promised, I think, 50,000 jobs. We did not get anything. What has happened in our area of west London is that as Heathrow has developed, our industrial base has moved out, gone to other, cheaper regions. What have they been replaced by? Warehousing. We have lost skilled jobs and got unskilled work and exploitation.
On the wider health implications, I warn hon. Members and the Government about ultrafine particles. When I was a youngster, I left school and went to the shop floor. I worked up north in a place near Hebden Bridge. Hebden Bridge is where they manufactured asbestos. We had suddenly discovered asbestos. At that point, people were campaigning to keep the factory there for the jobs and all the rest of it.
The effects of ultrafine particles are the asbestosis of the future. Look at the research. The Government have now set up a committee of experts to look at this issue, and it will report in three months’ time, possibly after we have been asked to make a decision. What we know about ultrafine particles is, first, that they come from aviation fuel in particular and that they spread across not just the surroundings of the airport, but at least 10 km around where there are emissions from aviation in particular. That means that we now have evidence from the working group of ultrafine particles in central London.
What do ultrafine particles do? They penetrate our bodies, get into the lungs, the heart and all the rest of it, and we are now discovering the cardiovascular disease and different cancers that are occurring. They also penetrate the brain. We are worried about what they are doing to our children, who are growing up breathing these ultrafine particles.
I warn the Government: this is a bit like asbestosis. We have to recognise that once this impact has been pointed out to us, if we continue to inflict it on our population in London, we will be held responsible as a Government for enabling it to happen.
We have already raised all the issues that have been brought forward today, including noise. We had a session a month ago with the noise experts, who now tell us that the Government’s level is too high. The threshold of damage to people’s health is so much lower than that, and we are well beyond the European limits. We need to shake people up, because we do not even know the flight paths yet. All we can do is look at what has been said in the past, and we know that at least another 900,000 people—nearly a million—will be affected by the consequences of noise and air pollution.
When we debated this issue last time, we were told that there is an urgent need to deliver the project for the good of our economy, even though we now know that it will cost us 15,000 jobs. Where will those jobs be lost? From regional airports. Members should have a look at the New Economics Foundation analysis. On top of that, we are told that there is a sense of urgency, but what did we hear a fortnight ago? Heathrow has delayed expansion by another five years.
I come to the cost escalation. Since we have had this debate over the last couple of years, the costs have doubled. It is expected that £15 billion is needed to pay for the transport infrastructure, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, Heathrow is not putting in a penny. Hon. Members know that Heathrow will come to two groups to pay for the infrastructure: taxpayers and passengers. This is such a con and we have to throw it out, once and for all. I do not want to be here in a couple of years’ time.
There is now no rationale for proceeding with Heathrow expansion. We need to come back after the consultation, and I hope that the Government will say, “Enough is enough.” We must kill off this project, once and for all. We cannot just keep coming back and wasting resources on all this. I think there is a responsibility on all our shoulders, particularly now, because we know so much more about the detriment not just to our individual constituencies, but to the economy overall and to the health of millions of people.
The message to the Government should be to just kill off Heathrow expansion. Let us finish this ritual that we have purely because of the lobbying impact of Heathrow airport. We have to stand up and represent our constituents, not corporations that will rip off us in the future.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate, and for the way in which she introduced it. I know that my two Liberal Democrat colleagues from south-west London, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), will completely agree with her. They have a long history of standing up against the unreasonable plan to expand Heathrow.
I want to talk about my Woking constituents’ point of view. Despite Woking being the busiest railway station in Surrey and less than 20 miles away from the airport, we have no rail link to Heathrow. I say to the Minister that if Heathrow airport is to expand, the Government must ensure that southern rail access is paid for by the airport so that my constituents in Woking, and the whole southern region under Heathrow, can have proper access. It is not reasonable that we cannot access it at the moment via any form of public transport.
Thankfully, Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd, a private company with which I recently chaired a roundtable, has put together a business case to ensure that we can have southern rail access. It would also enable Woking and the broader west Surrey area to have a second route to London via Heathrow, and then on to Paddington. Has the Minister met with Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd? If not, will he or a ministerial colleague do so?
I want to draw parallels with the planning requirements for Gatwick’s second runway. As a planning condition, the airport was required to ensure that a certain percentage of travellers could come via public transport, particularly trains. Will those requirements be applied to Heathrow, if it expands? If it does expand, it should have those requirements. I know that the Department for Transport was looking at this issue via the airports national policy statement review and the public transport requirements, but I hope it makes Southern Railway access a legal requirement if Heathrow expands. That would ensure that if the expansion happens—many colleagues do not want it—passengers will be able to get to Heathrow as sustainably as possible.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this timely and important debate. She set out very well the issues that we are concerned about and grappling with.
Heathrow expansion raises significant concerns among my constituents, given that my constituency neighbours the airport. As has been said, this is not a new issue. I was going to say that it has been going on since the ’90s, but apparently it was in 1983—before I was born at Hillingdon hospital—that the people took up the mantle and battled expansion. That explains why people are incredibly frustrated and jaded: the same questions are being asked yet again, but we are getting no answers to these decades-long problems.
The Government have been explicit time and again about their commitment to the four tests, which I share. Does Heathrow expansion deliver economic growth in every region? Is it consistent with our climate change commitments? Will it undermine air quality progress? Will the plans properly manage, limit and mitigate the noise impact? If the expansion fails to meet those tests, it should not be allowed to go ahead. That was always my starting point, and to this day I have been consistent about that when looking at the proposals.
To be frank, the numbers that we have seen are not reassuring. According to the Government’s own modelling, the impact on GDP is predicted to be just 0.03% to 0.05% by 2056—a reduction in the economic benefit set out in earlier estimates by a factor of 10. In addition, the Department’s modelling suggests that, once monetised costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between £20 billion and £60 billion to the economy.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that there would potentially be benefits to consumers, but projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by £60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, as the higher airline charges to fund the development will be passed on to passengers. Rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. That is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals. Many Members have heard from them.
I share the new Government’s ethos of delivering growth in every postcode, but the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be a silver bullet. Modelling suggests that between 72% and 92% of the benefits of the expansion would be concentrated in London and the south-east, and research by the New Economics Foundation suggests that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the south-east, harming regional airport capacity. Many Members are rightly fighting for such growth in their regions.
It was previously claimed that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, but that is simply not the case. There are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Committee that it does not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure. Time and again, we see taxpayers in London and elsewhere in the UK pick up the price for Heathrow-related travel. The new Elizabeth line trains, which are being built and will be rolled out soon, will not serve West Drayton, my constituents or constituents between Reading and Maidenhead, because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow, but the airport is providing no money. The headlines about expansion tell us one thing, but Heathrow bosses admit to another.
We risk pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project not because it offers a credible path to growth but because it has become a symbol of whether we are committed to growth in an abstract form. We saw that with HS2. Although rail expansion and capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed and poorly specced, and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation.
As Members have said, the evidence falls flat on the other tests too. On the noise impact, a huge number of people will be pulled into increased noise and disruption across London, although the flight paths are still uncertain, so we cannot be sure about the exact scope and extent. The costs of mitigating noise impacts, with secondary glazing or replacement housing, are potentially exponential, and we still do not know how they will be paid or who will pay for them.
The Climate Change Committee’s work, published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990, and that Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. It concluded there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK’s vital climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, on air pollution, serious concerns remain over the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of the latest expansion proposals has been sufficiently assessed.
Frankly, there is no point standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria for shaping the future of Heathrow, if the moment they are not met, we abandon them. It is not something I can do while looking my constituents squarely in the face. For many of us, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we do not have to keep on talking about it. For residents in Hillingdon and London, the impacts will be profound, with the case as shaky now as it has ever been.
That has been compounded by what can only be described as an incredibly poor consultation process, which failed to engage properly with the strength of feeling on the issue, with consultations taking place in August, despite many stakeholders, including me, outlining the difficulty of securing proper engagement over the summer. Heathrow’s own consultation that is taking place as we speak, with have no events in my constituency, despite its neighbouring the airport. Perhaps Heathrow does not want to hear questions because, as we have seen time and again, it does not have the answer to meeting the four tests.
We must take our time and think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper data that is thought through. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in calling for a proper national strategy about our aviation needs, which thinks holistically about every region and every aspect of our nation’s aviation needs. We must think again on Heathrow expansion.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate and for so clearly laying out the case against Heathrow expansion. I begin by declaring my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities.
Hon. Members who support a third runway would likely say it is appalling that we have been debating this issue for 20 years, or 40 years in the case of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who started his campaign as I turned five. Those Members are right; it is appalling that we have been discussing it for so many years. Every time a new Government raise the prospect of a third runway, communities in west and south-west London feel this is an albatross around their necks that they cannot get rid of.
It is time to put this issue to bed once and for all. The evidence is clearer than ever that Heathrow expansion is a white elephant that would have devastating consequences for our environment, as well as our local communities. The economic case simply does not stand up. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for repetition in my speech of what has already been said, but it is important that the Minister hears, across parties and across London, the strength of feeling against this project.
When I last spoke on this issue in the Chamber, I pointed out that the Government had provided little evidence to support their claims of the benefits of a third runway. Since then, the Government have published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement—HENPS as we like to call it. Rather than provide evidence, if anything it has made even clearer that the case for expansion is simply not credible.
In the space of 21 months, since the former Chancellor announced Government support for expansion, the promise of GDP growth has been downgraded from 0.43% to just 0.05% by 2056. That is a decrease of 90% since an announcement was made in a speech about growth—just to send a signal to the City, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington laid out so clearly.
The same can be said about jobs. The former Chancellor promised 100,000 jobs, but 61,000 are promised in the HENPS, and the Department for Transport explicitly acknowledges that this is likely to mean the redistribution of labour, not new jobs. That is supported by research conducted by the New Economics Foundation, which suggests that two thirds of jobs will be displaced from other parts of the UK.
As our new Prime Minister said, Heathrow expansion traps investment in London and the south-east, and the regions of the UK will suffer for it. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode, perhaps the Government should bring forward a national aviation strategy, rather than continuing to pursue Heathrow, to allow aviation policy with that regional growth mission.
I and many others have warned since the beginning that the affordability of the scheme is questionable at best. A third runway is a huge infrastructure investment that would require the relocation of London’s busiest motorway, the M25, with all the ensuing congestion, chaos and pollution. Will the Minister tell us in his closing remarks what work his Department is doing with National Highways to assess those impacts? With a price tag of £49 billion and rising, it is our duty as Members of Parliament to raise questions about where that money will come from, especially as the figure does not include surface access improvements, particularly for public transport.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) that I strongly support the southern rail link, and the case has already been made to build and invest in it. As he said, his constituents cannot get to the airport from Woking. Believe it or not, I am only a few miles from it in Whitton, near Twickenham, and there is not a direct link for me and my constituents to get there either, so there is already a case for public transport investment. However, there is no mention of that in the HENPS and no costing for it, so I hope the Minister will elaborate on the Government’s expectations for surface access improvements and how they will be funded. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, no one wants to see another HS2, with spiralling costs and delays.
That is why last week it was so galling, after months of questioning Ministers and being told that they had full confidence in the expansion being solely privately funded, to see reports in the press that the Government were hiring bankers to advise on:
“The financeability and financial deliverability of Heathrow expansion”.
Minister, why are the Government doing this and why now? Given that they have commissioned these bankers to make the assessments, how exposed is the public purse? It is grossly irresponsible.
After the summer we have just had, it is clearer than ever that climate change is having a serious impact on the quality of life in this country—on our health, economy and public services. At the same time, the Government propose to expand the single largest polluter in the UK, to the tune of carbon emissions equal to the entirety of Birmingham. The Climate Change Committee made that clear in its advice to the Government, arguing that expansion is incompatible with our climate commitments. That same morning, the Minister for Local Energy and Jobs said on the radio that it was only advice and could be ignored. I hope the Minister will say whether he accepts the Climate Change Committee’s expert advice and what the Government actually intend to do with it.
This is an opportunity to press pause, look again at all the evidence and listen to the voice of local communities. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that this should be a decision for Londoners. Londoners will suffer most in terms of the health and noise impacts. Expansion could mean that up to 3.4 million people will be exposed to harmful levels of aircraft noise, but, as others have said, we cannot even be sure who, as airspace modernisation is happening at the same time, which makes it impossible to consider the scale of the impact properly.
More evidence continues to come out. The aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude survey studies done by Professor Charlotte Clark on behalf of the Department for Transport have stated clearly that the harmful impacts of noise occur at a lower level than previously understood. That is not something, as proponents of Heathrow expansion like to say, that one can get used to. Furthermore, expansion means that 10,000 extra tonnes of nitrogen dioxide will be produced a year. the HENPS simply does not have adequate protection for that, and it is deathly silent on the issue of ultrafine particles that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke so knowledgably about.
It is crucial that any decision on a third runway is undertaken with evidence leading the way. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent comments, and I hope he is not equivocating without thinking. I look forward to receiving a reply to my letter to him about the issue, which I sent on the day that he became Labour leader back in July. The evidence is clear. Millions of Londoners are clear. We do not want a third runway at Heathrow. While the Conservatives have made clear that they are very happy to ignore the evidence and the voice of local communities and railroad this scheme through, come what may, I hope that the Prime Minister will instead stand by his convictions, as he has promised to do time and again, and take a third runway off the table once and for all, for the sake of taxpayers, our planet and our local communities, whose health and wellbeing risk being blighted by this project.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will now call the Front-Bench spokesman for each party. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition speak for eight or nine minutes and the Minister speaks for 10 minutes or so, and then there will be time for Fleur Anderson to speak for a few minutes at the end, and for me to put the question.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her excellent opening speech. I hope she will not mind my saying that I experienced a certain sense of déjà vu during it, because, although she put things excellently, as she always does, this is not something I have not heard before. I very much hope that the Minister was listening.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed a third runway at Heathrow because the case for expansion has never added up. With the proposed economic benefits declining by 90% in the past decade, an operational second runway at Gatwick in the pipeline, and the Climate Change Committee’s recent statement that a third runway would be incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets, there is simply no case to be made for expansion any more. Despite the former Chancellor’s framing a third runway as part of the UK’s growth agenda, the Treasury’s analysis puts the third runway’s net value to UK residents at between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion over 60 years. Heathrow is already in over £17 billion-worth of debt. The headline cost of a third runway, which the Government assert will be completely privately funded, stands at £49 billion, but that does not take into account over £100 billion of carbon abatement costs, nor the billions of pounds required for investment in the surface access upgrades that are needed.
I was also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the impact of the third runway plans on the M25 and the huge economic impact that will have across a vast swathe of the south-east. If the additional passengers cannot even travel to Heathrow, that rather defeats the purpose of adding capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made the point that we lack so many connections across the south-east that it is already incredibly difficult to travel to Heathrow. That is not just from Surrey; my constituency does not have a direct link, despite Richmond being a mainline station in south-west London. The lack of access will not just affect passengers; it will also reduce access to employment, severely limiting some of the economic benefits that we have heard about. It simply will not be possible for people to access the airport to take up the jobs.
That is not to mention that Heathrow will seek to recoup its investment by passing on the cost to passengers. That will, of course, increase the cost of flying, as we have heard from a number of contributors to the debate, which will dampen demand. The Government recently spent £3 million on a banker to advise on the strength of the economic case for Heathrow; those of us here in the Chamber could have saved them the bother. With the Government seeking to find savings in the upcoming Budget, we can also save them the effort: there is no viable financial case for expansion.
The introduction of nearly 300,000 more flights a year will have unavoidable environmental and social consequences. The Government’s commissioned aviation night noise effects study identifies that residents exposed to higher levels of aircraft noise are twice as likely to experience severe sleep disturbance. Many of the MPs in this room will have heard about those impacts directly from their constituents. We had a good community meeting across Richmond borough—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I attended—and some of the stories we heard were particularly harrowing, especially from young people suffering from learning disabilities and additional needs such as autism. The impact of night flights and aircraft noise on those people is unendurable.
Those indicators are widely accepted to correlate with an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as poor mental wellbeing. People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. The flightpaths for a third runway have not even been designed yet, so how can the Government produce a viable noise impact assessment and reassure residents who are not already exposed to aircraft noise that a third runway will not impact them? I did not plan to mention this, but I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his impactful description of what it means for not only the people whose homes are on the proposed site of the third runway, but for those whose homes surround it, and his powerful case about the effect it will have on their lives.
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding these additional flights to our skies will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. The Government have previously used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from the expansion of Heathrow, although they seem to have scaled back that argument more recently. Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of CO2 into our environment every year. The Climate Change Committee’s recent conclusion that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s climate commitments presents the Government with a clear choice: to pursue a third runway at Heathrow or to take the climate crisis facing us seriously. It seems an easy decision to me.
Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Committee’s verdict that the current plans for a third runway are not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? The Prime Minister’s recent comments that distanced the Government’s support from a third runway were a step in the right direction, but he needs to go further, back his own convictions and categorically oppose expansion. I anticipate that the Tory spokesman, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), will reflect his party’s recent conference commitment to expanding Heathrow. That shows not only its lack of interest in the wellbeing of London and Londoners but its susceptibility to big business lobbying in the face of hard economic facts. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister that the third runway proposal is not fit for purpose and put an end to this white elephant once and for all?
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development.
That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking
“that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.]
However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.
Sarah Olney
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?
Mr Holden
I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I intimated that there is uncertainty about the growth of Belfast City airport: it has its plans to grow, but the growth of Heathrow will be part of how Belfast City airport will grow—the two of them can grow together. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that when it comes to regional connectivity, the opportunity for us to grow in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, depends greatly on how Heathrow grows?
Mr Holden
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Holden
No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers.
I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time.
The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund:
“The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”.
This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence.
Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads?
I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.
Danny Beales
The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?
Mr Holden
Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis.
What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated:
“The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter”
That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.”
There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well.
Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.
Mr Holden
Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project?
From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate. I thank the hon. Members in attendance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for bringing this important debate to the House.
Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the Aviation Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is attending Committee proceedings on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill. However, I am here as the Minister for Local Transport. I care deeply about the impacts of the expansion on the wider transport network. That means considering how people travel to and from the airport and ensuring that transport infrastructure is able to meet future demand while supporting local communities.
Simon Lightwood
I will make a bit of progress, if the hon. Member does not mind. We are a bit short on time.
I may not be able to respond to every question raised during the debate, as the Government are currently considering the consultation responses, and parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement—or HENPS—remains ongoing. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt those processes or prejudge any future decisions while that work remains under way. However, I will ensure that hon. Members receive responses in due course to any points that I am unable to cover.
This Government recognise Heathrow’s critical role as the UK’s only hub airport, connecting businesses and passengers to global markets and supporting trade, tourism and investment across the country.
Simon Lightwood
I am still going to make a bit of progress; I have limited time, and I want to reply to the points raised.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government published the draft HENPS consultation in June. That set out the proposed planning policy framework for expansion and the requirements that any future scheme would need to meet, including the Government’s four tests on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise.
As I have noted, we are carefully considering the more than 27,000 responses received and will also consider the recommendations of the Transport Committee. Any finalised HENPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and a vote in the House, before it could have legal effect.
The draft HENPS does not grant development consent for expansion. Only when a national policy statement has been designated can proposals for a development consent order be brought forward. Any future proposal by a promoter of expansion would still need to progress through the statutory development consent order process and demonstrate that it met the requirements of the relevant policy framework. It is for potential promoters to determine the timetable and sequencing of their proposals, and for the Government to put the right frameworks in place. Any potential promoter bringing forward a scheme of this scale and complexity will need to balance pace with deliverability, affordability and value for money for passengers.
Given the current stage of the consultation process and the ongoing period of parliamentary scrutiny, I will not seek to pre-empt those processes, and my remarks today should be considered in that context. The Government will provide a more substantive update to the House once we are in a position to do so. That said, I will address some of the points raised during today’s debate where I can.
John McDonnell
I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, and I have a lot of sympathy for him; I would not want to be associated with this thing either. There is one issue that I would like him to write to us on. The air quality working group will report in three months’ time, which could possibly be after a decision is made by the Government. One of the things that we will be asking for, if any framework is developed, is for the Government to set a limit that we should aim for on ultrafine particles. In Europe, they do that, and it is increasingly becoming a legal requirement to monitor them there. We have no monitoring and no limit. If he could write to me about the Government’s consideration of that, it would be really helpful.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to ultrafine particles in a bit. First, turning to the four tests—economic growth being the first—expansion could generate economic growth across the country, with updated analysis indicating potential cumulative benefits of between £39 billion and £52 billion to UK passengers and the wider economy, including lower fares, increased flight frequencies and fewer delays.
Ayoub Khan
With any infrastructure project, there will obviously be a balance between growth and the economy on the one hand, and the impact on the environment and many families on the other. In this case, it seems that the growth does not outweigh the negative impact. May I digress a little? It may be unsurprising that we do not have transport infrastructure, given the cost to drivers who have to park at airports. Sixteen of the top 20 airports across the UK have faced an increase of more than 33% in six months. Drivers are calling it an absolute rip-off; 81% of those surveyed agree. Will the Minister consider reducing the costs, or involving himself in that?
Simon Lightwood
I am sure that the Aviation Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s message and will be delighted to respond to him.
Any promoter must give evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally. Analysis published alongside the draft HENPS indicates that up to 40% of the estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue in regions outside London and the south-east.
Deirdre Costigan
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his limited time. Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall have responded to the consultation. Noise has been a particular concern, so I hope that he will manage to make some remarks on how realistic steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise.
I also want to talk about jobs. The Minister talks about growth. Many of my constituents work at the airport, and their worry is that if the expansion does not go ahead, we will lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future. Is the Minister able to say anything to reassure the many workers from my constituency in good-quality jobs at Heathrow airport?
Simon Lightwood
Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.
The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.
I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.
On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.
Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.
Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.
The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.
Simon Lightwood
I am sure the Aviation Minister will have more to say on that. There has been much in the media about the Government looking at this area, and I am sure the Aviation Minister will continue to engage with hon. Members on airport drop-offs.
On affordability, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I have said, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. That includes the surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including by considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered. The CAA’s primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, and affordability will be important.
Hon. Members mentioned the consultation period. We believe that a consultation period of more than 10 weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand-new statement. The consultation period was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section 7 of the Planning Act 2008 and in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which require consultations to last for a proportionate amount of time.
Hon. Members also mentioned the Climate Change Committee, which has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. We are considering that advice alongside the wider evidence and will set out the Government’s conclusions in our formal response.
I thank all Members for attending today’s debate. As noted, the Government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Committee, alongside the responses received during the consultation, before determining the next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge the process, any finalised HENPS will be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House, before it can have legal effect, giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to vote either for or against it.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call Fleur Anderson to wind up the debate, let me say that the Minister has stepped in for the Aviation Minister, who I appreciate is on other ministerial business and has committed to writing to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I want to put it on the record that that commitment has been made, and I expect it to happen.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for stepping in. I recognise that he is a very responsible Minister in answering the local transport questions that have been raised time and again in this debate. I look forward to hearing answers about what the strategy will be. There is a huge hole in this project, although that is not the only thing to be concerned about.
I say to all those listening and to those who will be responding to the consultation, which will start on 27 October and continue until 22 December, that there are some concerns for those of us who live in London; we have heard the concerns about the noise and air pollution, and the very serious concerns about health. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister and the commitment to listen carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have, as well as the impact of all the proposed changes throughout the day. Although we do not yet know where the flightpaths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected, so everyone who lives in London should respond to the consultation.
Those people who do not live in London should also respond and should look at the promises that are being made but not delivered—promises for economic growth across the country. There will not be “hope in every heart” or increased “growth in every postcode” from this development, although there will be a huge number of promises being made by Heathrow. Heathrow asked the Government whether it could increase its funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so people across the country should expect to be lobbied very hard about it. They should also expect huge figures to be discussed, but they should look into the assumptions behind them. To passengers, I say that there will be increased fares from this highly indebted company, because it will not be footing the bill.
I thank the Minister for looking into this—
John McDonnell
I just want to raise the issue of jobs again. In the Select Committee inquiry, one of the representatives who gave information about jobs said that there was a real concern that if the company flounders on the financing for this project, as it almost certainly will, it will come to Government—and if the Government say no, that will have an impact on the existing operation and will put it in jeopardy. Those Members who have constituents who work at Heathrow, as I do, are worried about the existing operation of the airport being threatened by the overreach with respect to the third runway. That is why we have always argued not for a bigger Heathrow, but for a better Heathrow.
Fleur Anderson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that this debate has lifted the lid on some aspects of Heathrow as a company and that it is a highly indebted company and a very thin company with not a lot of financial backing to it. That puts at risk this whole project, which would come to the Government’s door if it fails, but it also puts jobs at risk, in addition to all the fear and worry of our constituents about the project going ahead. Will it just run into the sand and be a millstone around the Government’s neck?
This debate has also lifted the lid on the four tests. Can they really be met? That is a question that, as MPs concerned about the issue, we have asked many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national policy statement so that they are so wide that anyone could meet the requirements, then, if the four tests are really going to be strong and serious tests, I cannot see how they can be met and how this project can go ahead. But I welcome the consultation that is coming up, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.
Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave
(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 Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Melanie Onn to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am really pleased to have secured this debate, and I am grateful to the colleagues who have come to participate in it. Statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers is an important and pressing matter, not only to those in the Chamber but to thousands of households, and it goes to the heart of the Government’s aim to support families and ensure that no child is left behind.
When a child can no longer live with their parents, it is often grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close family friends who step forward to offer them a loving home. Across the UK, more than 150,000 children are growing up in kinship care, and many have experienced trauma, loss or significant upheaval. At precisely the moment they need stability and reassurance, the people offering them that security can find themselves facing an impossible choice between caring for a child they love and keeping their job. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, I have heard numerous accounts from young people and carers of just how much of a difference a family safety net can make to a child’s life outcomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, a record 4,287 children are in the care system. Some 83% of those are in foster care, and a large proportion are placed in kinship arrangements. Because there is no statutory paid leave, nearly 30% of local kinship carers have been forced to give up their jobs entirely, pushing families into financial hardship. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should be pressing the Minister to introduce a statutory right to paid leave for every kinship carer across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Melanie Onn
The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point on behalf of his constituents. Over 40% of those foster care placements are kinship arrangements. That is a significant number of families, and they should not be forced to decide between continuing to work or looking after a child. The decision is not a difficult one—their decision will always be to look after a child who comes to them in traumatic circumstances. We should not rely on kinship carers taking unpaid leave, which can put in jeopardy their career, their household finances and the security with which the child moves into their home. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
Melanie Onn
We are very popular! I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the Lady.
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us this debate. Does she agree that, with over a thousand children in kinship care in Cornwall, kinship carers play a vital role in keeping vulnerable children in loving family networks, and that when 45% of kinship carers lose their job after taking on the care of a child, we must do more to ensure that those carers receive the support that they need?
Melanie Onn
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The concern for kinship carers is that they either have to give up work voluntarily or fall foul of their employer’s terms and conditions merely by taking on the moral duty of caring for a child. Introducing statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers would send a signal in society that we recognise the importance of family arrangements and that those family arrangements extend not just to birth parents, adoptive parents or foster parents, but to kinship families as well.
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Earlier this month I attended a kinship event in Whitton in my constituency for Kinship Care Week. I met a local woman who had worked as a probation officer in the Ministry of Justice for 20 years. She stepped up suddenly—overnight—to take care of her best friend’s daughter when her best friend was no longer able to do so. The Ministry of Justice had no policy on kinship leave. It was only thanks to her very sympathetic boss that she was able to take a combination of sick leave and annual leave, which allowed her to have some paid and some unpaid time off. Does the hon. Lady agree that both the public and private sectors need to offer statutory paid leave for kinship carers, as a number of leading employers wrote in a letter to the Business Secretary last week?
Melanie Onn
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. She is right—as she so often is—that we should not expect these carers to rely on the good will of their employers. The Government have made good strides in having the term “kinship” recognised across Government. We now have the ambassador and pilots across the country, which I will come to later. Strides have been made, but to have this codified and recognised legislatively would spread the word.
There have been good examples of private sector employers offering paid leave for kinship carers, which is incredibly welcome, but they need to be as aware as they can be. It is much easier to notify the public sector of changes through Government, but the private sector might not always be so aware. There is a big opportunity if the Government are prepared to consider this closely and bring forward the outcome of the review that they are undertaking.
We celebrated Kinship Care Week earlier this month. I was pleased to welcome the Minister for children and families—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to meet some of our remarkable and dedicated local kinship carers and impressive council staff from the children’s services team. I am proud to have secured north-east Lincolnshire as one of the seven areas selected for the Government’s new kinship zones programme. We have already seen more than 450 children in north-east Lincolnshire benefit from a pilot of wraparound, integrated social services support and a financial package on a par with foster carers.
The conversations I had that day remind us how much more there is to do. Kinship care arrangements often happen with little or no warning. Families can be given as little as an hour to decide whether they can take in a child—or several children—with whom they may not have the closest of relationships. They may have children of their own or other family responsibilities in the home. There is enormous emotional pressure and often a sense of guilt when the alternative may be sending a child formally to enter the care system.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a powerful champion for kinship carers across the country. Those crucial early moments are vital for any parent but, unlike with traditional parental leave, kinship carers often have to understand the caring responsibilities they are taking on at incredibly short notice, and likely against a much more traumatic backdrop than most parents have to wrestle with. It cannot be right that they do not have any access to paid leave, so they can be there for the child’s formative moments. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s parental leave review is a powerful opportunity to put that injustice right?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is right that this is a real opportunity—a pivotal moment, really—for the Government to put right a long-standing inequity in provision for different family arrangements. I look forward to the Minister setting out in more detail how far the Government have got with looking at that review, and when we can hope to see an outcome.
Once a decision is made by the carer, children can arrive with little more than the clothes they are wearing. Carers may have no knowledge of their medical or dietary needs. Suddenly, they find themselves navigating school arrangements. It could be a grandmother navigating school arrangements, when the difference in systems is vast, and coping with new appointments and the needs of a traumatised child, often with little practical support.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument and is a powerful advocate for kinship carers and the children they care for. When the Education Committee took evidence on this issue during our special educational needs and disabilities inquiry, Kinship stated that 47% of all children in kinship care have some sort of special educational need. That underlines that we should be giving kinship carers statutory paid leave so that they can meet the child’s complex needs.
Melanie Onn
I was not aware that the Education Committee did that inquiry. It goes very well with an inquiry that the APPG on kinship care did recently on the SEND needs of children in kinship care. Across Parliament, Members who have connections with kinship care communities recognise that children often arrive with additional needs, and that families often have no experience of managing or dealing with that. If a person in work, regardless of what their job is, is suddenly expected to provide for the needs of a child—it could be a physical need, or a mental, emotional or cognitive need—they have to figure it out, and in this day and age we should not expect them to take unpaid leave to navigate their way through that. They are stepping forward to provide safety and stability—the same level of care that we expect foster carers to provide. If the state provides foster care for a child in need, we make available all the necessary support, including the right to paid leave, but kinship carers are not currently entitled to that.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is a tremendous advocate for kinship carers up and down this country. On more than one occasion, she has mentioned the circumstances that ordinary people find themselves in when faced with relations, close friends or potentially their own kids going into care. It is very emotional.
Lots of people who accept kinship carers, such as Linda Watson in my constituency, feel the need to ensure that their children are not taken into care. They need to give them the best possible start in life, or the best way in life, at whatever age they are. A lot of kinship carers believe that a pat on the back, a rub on the back of the neck, a pat on the head and a big thank you are not enough. They need financial support so that they can give these kids, who are already in a difficult position with their family life and all the rest of it, a good start in life. In order to do that, kinship carers need the right support; they need adequate financial support.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution. To build on that, eight in 10 kinship carers who leave their work never return to paid employment. This is not just a short-term problem; it can lead to lifelong issues.
The Government have pledged to ensure that people are in work for the long term, and they are setting an example of what work means, but providing sufficient flexibility in our employment law is the right way to go to ensure that these families can be self-sufficient while providing support and love for the child. They should be able to earn a living without being penalised. My constituent Lucy was in the same position as the constituent of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson): she had to take a mix of sick leave and compassionate leave, which her employer very kindly jumbled together. She said, “Why should my kids be disadvantaged because the system doesn’t recognise them and doesn’t really work for them?”
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What my hon. Friend is pointing out, but has not quite said yet, is that we are also thinking about the long-term costs for society. Families that step forward stop a child going into care, which is much more expensive and much more traumatic for the young person. A phased period of going back to work before going back fully stops a carer having to call on the state for support over their lifetime. The Government ought to think about this not as a potential extra cost burden somewhere, but as an investment and a genuine preventive measure that saves money while improving outcomes. What is not to like?
Melanie Onn
I could not agree more. Independent analysis commissioned by the Family Rights Group says that paid kinship leave could return over £2 into the economy for every £1 invested, so double the support provided to these families goes back into the local economy.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. I want to go further on the point about investment and the comparison between kinship care and foster care that she mentioned earlier. One of my constituents has been a kinship carer for three children for nine years. She is also a foster carer for her grandson. She reports that because of his legal status, it has been easier for her to access the support she needs for him than for the three children she cares for as a kinship carer. Does my hon. Friend agree that introducing paid employment leave for kinship carers is not about special treatment, but about equal treatment?
Melanie Onn
I do. We should hold that in our minds as we go forward and look into the review in more detail. We are looking at the issue of equal treatment for all families and making sure that some are not treated differently to others.
I am aware of my time coming to a close; the Minister will want to respond to the many points that have been made. There have been some good examples of private companies, including Tesco and B&Q, two really big retail employers, that have already recognised the need for change ahead of the curve and offer paid kinship leave. Around 76%—three quarters—of employers support a Government-funded statutory entitlement. It is clear that there is more to be done to help kinship families to contribute economically and realise financial security.
There are some practical questions about how a statutory entitlement would work, particularly when caring arrangements happen suddenly. There are credible proposals and we have a real opportunity to make meaningful progress. We can give kinship carers a statutory right to paid employment leave akin to that of adoptive and other working parents. That would keep thousands of carers out of the welfare system, helping to reduce strain on it. It would return economic benefits through carers remaining in employment with higher tax revenue and better outcomes for children. Most importantly, it would give children the protected time they deserve to heal from trauma and settle into their new homes. It is therefore crucial that the Government’s parental leave and pay review finally closes this unfair gap in the law and delivers the first ever statutory right to pay and leave for kinship carers.
A great deal has been achieved. The Government deserve recognition for already having taken some important steps, but we can do much more, not least ensuring that carers have the time and financial security to be able to provide kinship care.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. Since she was elected to this place, she has done incredible work to champion the voices and issues of kinship carers in every room and at every opportunity. I also thank colleagues across parties for all their work in raising the important issue of kinship carers at every opportunity, with me directly and with colleagues across Government.
I begin by recognising that, as we have heard, kinship carers often step forward at extremely short notice and in immensely difficult circumstances. Many of the children involved will be experiencing some of the most turbulent and crucial days or weeks of their lives, and may have experienced bereavement, family breakdown, separation, instability or trauma. At precisely that moment, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, other relative or family friend may be asked to make a lifechanging commitment.
I also acknowledge the brilliant work of kinship advocacy organisations, such as Kinship and the Family Rights Group, which continue to campaign and work diligently to raise awareness of the role of kinship carers, many of whom might not even recognise themselves as kinship carers. Those organisations continue to engage constructively with me and the Government to bring forward important evidence and insights into the experience of kinship families. Their work is incredibly appreciated, and helps us to understand not only the scale of kinship care but the practical realities facing carers and children.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for inviting me to a recent meeting of the APPG that she chairs, where I had the opportunity to hear directly from a kinship carer about their experiences. Their contribution was moving, was instructive to the requirements from Government moving forwards, and underlined the importance of listening to and putting at the forefront the voices of kinship carers. Their real-life experiences are exactly what the Government are considering in our review.
Kinship carers provide love, stability and continuity at what can be an incredibly difficult time. Colleagues raised stories that they have heard directly from their constituents; I have heard stories from mine too. Amanda, who is a kinship carer in my constituency, took the time to meet me at my surgery recently. She provides incredible support to kinship carers across my constituency, and talks so openly about her experience. I know that colleagues have also heard from their constituents, and I thank them for raising those experiences today. I want people’s experience in the workplace, and their reflections on when they have unfortunately not experienced that, to shape not only this issue but my wider brief.
Of course, taking on the responsibility of being a kinship carer can mean significant emotional, practical and financial pressures, often with very little notice. I recognise not only their importance and contribution, but the challenges they face. At the APPG meeting, we talked a lot about the Family Rights Group data showing that eight in 10 kinship carers who left work have never returned to paid employment. That is a really stark statistic. I cannot even imagine the difficult position that kinship carers will be in of, as my hon. Friend alluded to, having to make the impossible decision between looking after a child who needs them at such an important time in their life, and their job. That insight is particularly valuable as we consider the evidence in the parental leave and pay review, and in wider work to support kinship families.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her years of hard work on this issue and on securing this debate. The Government’s core mission is to provide stable, loving homes for every child. That policy happens to have come out of the Department for Education, but the issue we are discussing spans across the Department for Business, the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on. Does the Minister agree that this issue is a fantastic example of where proper cross-Government work, pulling in the same direction, could produce outcomes for young people that are greater than the sum of the different policy parts?
Kate Dearden
On that note, I pay tribute to the brilliant Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for all his incredible work on kinship carers. I absolutely recognise the importance of cross-Government and cross-Department work on the issue, and I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that our intention is to work in a joined-up way to support kinship carers throughout their lives, and to look at where we need to go further and do better. That is why this debate is welcome and important, as we consider the parental leave and pay review.
Of course, colleagues will be fully aware of the significance of the work being undertaken in the Department for Education, from the kinship allowance pilot, which will provide kinship carers with a weekly allowance equivalent to the fostering national minimum allowance for each eligible child, to the work being done in the light of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. I thank colleagues for welcoming that work.
I also want to use this opportunity to update colleagues on the parental leave and pay review, which sits in my Department and is cross-working with the Department for Work and Pensions. There are, rightly, lots of Departments involved with this, because it is not just one part of life that is impacted for kinship carers—it is across everything. We recognise that support for the carer and support for the child cannot be easily separated. Giving a carer the time and support needed to help a child settle may contribute to the stability of that arrangement. That is why it is right that we are considering the experiences of kinship families across departmental boundaries—social care, employment policy, education and the wider support available to families.
We are committed to reviewing the wider system. Colleagues will know that the review was launched in July 2025, and that is why we are considering all the current parental leave and pay entitlements, as well as the experiences and needs of working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers.
We are jointly leading the review and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has fed into the review for their patience, as we are taking the time to go through as much evidence as possible, including roundtables and bilateral meetings, as well as meetings with me, other colleagues who are in the Chamber today and parental advocacy groups that represent kinship carers. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings that outline the next steps for implementing any reforms. I know there is significant interest in what the review will conclude.
Gareth Snell
When I hear talk of an end to a review my heart sinks because, in Government time, these reviews can take forever. Although it may conclude in 2027, can the Minister give the House an indication of how quickly after that point the Department and the Government will feel able to publish the outcomes of the review and the next steps, so that we will not need to wait a year or so to know what its conclusions are.
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is right to push me and my colleagues on this issue. I am unable today to pre-empt recommendations, as he knows. But I know how important this is and will keep him up to date with timelines and progress. He has my firm commitment today that we are moving at pace.
We are taking our time to review the evidence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are considering the issue and how best we can assure kinship carers holistically and across departmental boundaries. I hope that people watching today, including kinship carers, feel my commitment and determination. I know how importance this is; a week and a day can make such a difference to kinship carers’ lives.
That is why it has been really important for us to engage with as many people as possible and acknowledge the wider campaigns outside this room from trade unions, business representatives and employers, who are already going above and beyond. I thank them for it, as well as for highlighting the case for the current position and joining the calls that have been made in the Chamber today.
To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for raising the issue and giving us the opportunity to have this debate today. I also thank everyone for their engagement, here and outside this room, as well as our kinship carers, who are absolutely incredible people.
I am so moved and grateful every time I meet with them, and I know other colleagues are too. I hope they hear my commitment and determination to support them today and ensure that future support is practical, sustainable and focused on improving the outcomes for children and families. With that, I conclude my remarks and hand back over to my hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I do not think you get a chance to wind-up, Melanie, in half-hour debates, but as we have extra time, you can have 30 seconds.
Melanie Onn
Thank you! I think it is favouritism. I thank the charities Kinship and the Family Rights Group for their campaigning on this issue. If the Government want people to remain economically active and financially stable, to provide that stability necessary for the child or children, we have to take this forward. I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in hearing everybody.
We have had lots of contributions from Members today, as well as the dreaded, famous “at pace” comment. We will continue to keep up the pressure from our side. We need to get this right for every child who will go through this process while we are waiting. There will be a huge number of such children between now and next year. We owe them, and they deserve for us to get it right.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Lords Reform
(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 Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered House of Lords reform.
It is a pleasure to bring this debate to Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform. A few weeks ago, I showed a group of United States doctors around Parliament, which involved sitting in the Public Gallery of the House of Lords, looking at the King Charles throne, the Woolsack and a scattering of some quite elderly peers. One doctor said, “How do these guys get in here?”. When I answered that they were appointed by their mates, they all laughed—surely I was joking. Sadly, I was not joking.
Reform of the House of Lords has been on the cards for centuries. The House was actually abolished in 1649, but was reinstated a few years later, and it has been the subject of intense debate ever since. The idea of unelected peers having inherited access to Parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produces is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that the crisis of confidence in our political system is at an all-time high.
This Government have actually taken quite big strides—probably more than others—on the long overdue removal of hereditary peers. I also welcome proposals to impose a retirement age and a minimum participation requirement, but we cannot afford to push this constitutional necessity further down the road. I will take this opportunity to set out the case for reform of the House of Lords and how we can go about implementing it.
The function of our second Chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislation passed by the elected Commons. There are many exceptional Lords who do a really good job at that, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than lawmakers with a mandate from the people. During the Makerfield by-election, the Prime Minister called it “scandalous” and expressed support for an early change to the Lords.
One of the things that has most surprised me is learning that the House of Lords remains a self-governing institution. In the last session, we saw a handful of unelected peers, many of whom were rejected by the voters at the last election, abuse that fact to stall the progression of legislation passed by the elected Commons.
The other place is also deeply unrepresentative of our country. Over 55% of peers live in London and the south-east. I know that our Prime Minister is very concerned with that, and that he has called for a senate of nations and regions to replace the Lords, so that every corner of our country is properly represented in both of our Chambers.
The public also want change. Only 16% support the current status quo; 70% have little or no confidence in the institution, and a majority want an entirely elected upper Chamber. The voters gave a very clear mandate for a Labour manifesto that included a commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber, more representative of the regions and nations.
What could a second Chamber look like? That is a complex issue; we should convene a commission of citizens and experts to decide on its role and make-up. It should still absolutely be possible to retain the expertise that we have there, and that is exactly what our manifesto has committed us to.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has made a good start on setting out his case. However, does he not see the irony in calling for an appointed committee of the public and experts to look at how democratic the House of Lords is?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that such a consultative process might well come about from a Bill that my noble Friend, Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, has introduced to the second Chamber? It should indeed be for the experts to provide some ideas, and for us and members of the public to consult on the best way forward for the second Chamber.
Dr Opher
I have been working with Baroness Smith on her Bill. We need to get the great minds of this country to devise a good political system, one that reflects our country and gives us our best government.
I suggest that we need a commission to look into the matter. That commission could take many experts. How it is actually constituted remains something we can debate. The Government have announced a commission on electoral reform; maybe that could be extended to examine the composition of the second Chamber, because that would be a holistic approach to the system. I see some hon. Members shaking their heads.
I will briefly touch on an issue that many hon. Members care about: the lack of transparency in the other place. According to research by Transparency International UK, 128 peers hold paid political advisory roles that risk breaching parliamentary rules. We must strengthen the House of Lords code of conduct to put beyond doubt that legislators who serve in the House of Lords should not be lobbyists. Since 2013, almost a quarter of all nominations from political parties have been political donors—that is the ultimate cronyism.
I know many hon. Members wish to speak, so in conclusion I ask the Minister to meet with the APPG on House of Lords reform to discuss how the Government intend to fulfil their manifesto commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. Will the Minister consider expanding the remit of the commission on electoral reform to cover the role and composition of the other place? It is time—to quote someone who I do not normally agree with— to “take back control.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they want to be called to speak. I see that a number of Members are bobbing, so I will give priority to those who applied early to speak in the debate.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years, probably longer than anyone else in this debate, and I believe that the House of Lords, for all its faults over the years, provides a balance to an elected Chamber. I am afraid to say that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) misses the point of the House of Lords. We do not want another elected Chamber to rival the House of Commons. We need a house of experts—or elders, if you like, Sir John—people with knowledge, expertise and experience who have served this country over many decades in different walks of life.
Andrew Rosindell
In a moment. We need also those who represent continuity. Sir John, you will know better than most that continuity is the foundation of the success of this nation. To ignore what has gone on in the past and to lose all that continuous wisdom from the ages is pure vandalism. We do not want another elected set of politicians who we know will be, effectively, appointed by party headquarters—the leader’s favourites will be put on some list and put into the House of Lords, even though many of them would prefer to be in the House of Commons—as a second set of politicians.
I want a House of Lords that is depoliticised in many ways, so I am not keen on the fact that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who were friends of the leader at the time, or special advisers to Ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our parliamentary democracy stronger and better.
It cannot be right that a political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords. There are 80 Lib Dem peers, yet their party received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives—
Andrew Rosindell
Two? Okay. Plaid Cymru also has representatives. The Democratic Unionist party has six, but only five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. There should at least be representation of all political parties. Based on the votes at the last election, there certainly need to be a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords.
Mike Martin
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because there is just so much to feast upon there in one intervention. Just to draw out an inconsistency in his speech, he likes experts and history—I like them as well—yet he says that we should have an upper Chamber that is based on the votes at the last election. Presumably, those would be appointed by the parties, so how does he intend to balance those two tensions?
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Member will know that the way it works in the House of Lords is that it is based on party appointments. The Prime Minister will make nominations; so will the Leader of the Opposition; so will the leader of the Liberal Democrats; so will the leader of the Greens. They will nominate a sprinkling of new peers every so often, usually once a year. Well, where was the invitation for the leader of Reform UK to nominate a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords? The hon. Member must surely accept that that is very wrong when we consider that Reform UK was the third largest party in terms of votes at the last election.
Andrew Rosindell
I will in a moment. I go back to my original argument: we are getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become just one of two elected Chambers. We will regret that day. It will create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians, who will both claim to be truly representative of the people who have put them there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons—ultimately, we are elected by the people of this country and we can make the final decision through the Parliament Acts. At the end of the day, we do not actually have to be obedient to the House of Lords.
What I do know is that, within the House of Lords, there is an opportunity to have people with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former Cabinet Ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of trade unions or representatives of the different faith groups. It is good to have people like that. It is right that we still have the established Church of England represented through the bishops; although, these days, they are rather more to the left than I would like, they still represent the established Church of this country.
Andrew Rosindell
Well, I did not stand on that manifesto. I joined Reform UK after that manifesto. I can tell the hon. Member now that that is not our policy today. We are not going to abolish the House of Lords. We are not going to engage in constitutional vandalism.
Throughout the ages, we have evolved our constitutional and parliamentary democracy in a way that has given us strength and continuity, and has allowed us to change not in some radical direction, whereby minorities and people with vested interests can finish up controlling the institutions of this country, but in a way that is evolution rather than revolution. There is no requirement to abolish the House of Lords. There should not be an elected second Chamber.
New Zealand got rid of its second Chamber, so it has only one elected Chamber. I would prefer that, frankly, to a second load of politicians in the House of Lords who wish that they were MPs, but could not get there, so they were put in place by their friends in party headquarters. We do not want that. If we eventually do abolish the upper House, frankly it would be better just to have one Chamber than to have a second elected Chamber, because there would be rivalry between the two.
Look at it like this: if we choose carefully, change the system and make it more meritocratic in terms of experience, knowledge and the kind of people who we really want in the House of Lords, we will be buying in expertise at low cost. Otherwise, we will be paying consultants and experts that work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation. What is the point of that when we can give someone a peerage? That could be someone with vast knowledge, perhaps someone who has been an ambassador to another country, headed up an important institution or contributed to the establishment of an amazing charity, and who has vast knowledge from that. It could be someone like Sebastian Coe, the Olympic gold medallist who went on to run the London Olympics in 2012. Those people have value, but they will not stand for election, so we would lose all of them—[Interruption.] Well, they would not stand for election to the Lords.
As I say, we would lose good people. The great and the good would go and we would finish up, as I said earlier, with people who want to be politicians but would have to settle for being second-best. That is not good enough. We should do what we have always done in this country and allow our constitution and our parliamentary democracy to change—yes, change by all means—in a gentle and evolutionary way, so that we do not get rid of a tried and tested system that has lasted for generations and, with all its faults, done this country rather well over the centuries.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this critical debate. He has been a champion in pursuing long overdue reform to the upper Chamber.
Let me start by saying, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, that I have had the privilege of working with a number of excellent peers who are deeply committed to legislative scrutiny and improving our legislation. There are many members of the Lords who perform a vital public service. But good people can still be trapped in a bad system, and the public can see that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said, why is it acceptable in this country for lawmakers in the upper House to work as lobbyists at the same time? How can the public be expected to trust the system when those shaping legislation can also be paid to influence it? In my old life as a compliance officer, that would not have passed the most basic conflict of interest test and it should not pass such a test in Parliament. Transparency International UK has gone so far as to call the House of Lords:
“a lobbying network for hire.”
If that does not set alarm bells ringing—Transparency International UK is the true expert—I do not know what will.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Only a couple of individuals are involved, so my hon. Friend might not be aware that there are still Lords who sit on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal and who can be paid up to £40,000 a month for doing so, despite the national security law effectively meaning that the courts in Hong Kong are kangaroo courts. Does he agree that nobody from this place—either from this House or the other place—should be involved in anything to do with implementing the national security law in Hong Kong?
Phil Brickell
I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo courts in Hong Kong and to say that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting them.
While we are asking difficult questions, here is another one: why is it possible to be appointed to the legislature of the United Kingdom and then barely show up? I can think of no other workplace where someone can disappear for months, sometimes even years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in making decisions that affect millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities; membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation.
Then there is the size of the place. With about 800 peers— 800—the House of Lords is larger than almost every comparable second chamber in the democratic world. When people talk about a bloated state, perhaps they should start by walking through Westminster Hall and turning right at Central Lobby. Nobody seriously believes that adding more peers automatically leads to better scrutiny; what it does lead to is a system that looks increasingly detached from the public it serves.
Also, who gets to participate? The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the south-east, and it is not right that, for example, the north-west— my region—is so under-represented. However, it is hardly surprising, given that the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. That sounds reasonable, but try finding somewhere to stay in central London at that rate. The result is obvious: those with substantial means, or those who live close enough to commute, have a built-in advantage. We should not have a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and regions.
Then there is the transparency. Why do peers not have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why do they not have to declare how much they are paid for those jobs? The public are entitled to know where lawmakers are earning their money, and who could be influencing them.
Elsewhere on standards, the new legislation on disgraced peers, announced in the last King’s Speech, is long overdue. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that proposal? Elsewhere, what progress has been made on the Government’s three other manifesto commitments: first, introducing new participation requirements; secondly, delivering a national and regional balance for the upper Chamber; and finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process? Removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door, which is why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The reforms should include putting HOLAC on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto on demonstrably unsuitable appointments.
Let us tackle one final issue head-on: why should major party donors be rewarded with lifelong seats in the legislature? Public appointments should be earned through service and expertise, not purchased through cheque books. The House of Lords does important work, but many diligent and hard-working peers feel that they are having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting, or who are sometimes actively enabled by, a broken system. We need a smaller House, a cleaner House and a more transparent House. That is not radical; surely it is just common sense.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) not only on securing the debate, but on the manner in which he introduced it. I thank him for intervening on the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) to expose the case that he was making. Indeed, the hon. Member for Romford indicated that he was happy to join a party that proposed to abolish the thing that he wants to protect. He wants to depoliticise the thing that he wants to politicise further, and he wishes to maintain continuity of a body by changing it quite radically, according to his proposals.
One of the reasons we are here today is that a small number of Lords made a very eloquent and strong case for their own abolition through the manner in which they treated the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill earlier this year. They spent many months filibustering in order to effectively block that Bill, exceeding the powers that the House of Lords should have. I have often raised the question of why we want a second Chamber, and I think that most people, even the hon. Member for Romford, agree that it is there for sober, independent scrutiny of the legislation that we send down to the Lords. Their role is to encourage us to take a less tribal view on the legislation that we seek to take forward, and to provide expert scrutiny that is helpful for the processes we are engaged in.
However, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) put so articulately, the system of patronage is both corrupting and extremely corruptible. Clearly, that needs to be swept away in any reforms to the House of Lords, but the question is: what do we put in its place? I entirely understand the emotional response, which is to say that we should have an elected Chamber, but I want to challenge that idea. I have often said that we want to retain the best of the House of Lords Appointments Commission because it provides at least a template of a helpful function, particularly if we can attract the kind of people that the hon. Member for Romford described, so that a sliver—a proportion, a minority—of Members are selected according to the qualities that they can bring to the place. The rest of it should be on a jury service basis—or in other words, a citizens assembly. That has been proposed by a large number of people and organisations over time.
Of course, I can entirely understand the laudable and emotional response that one elects the Chamber, but there is a risk, which the hon. Member for Romford mentioned, that it becomes either a lapdog or a logjam to this Chamber. In those circumstances—we saw it with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—the Lords would argue that they have the democratic legitimacy to challenge the decisions of the primary Chamber. We do not, for example, say that because board members for the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Climate Change Committee or the Low Pay Commission have power and political influence over the decisions that are taken in our country, they should be elected. On that basis, I am sorry to say that the arguments for an elected Chamber evaporate away.
We need to find other ways of ensuring that we have the genuine and sober second-thought and independent scrutiny that this Chamber needs and deserves. Otherwise, quite frankly, it would be better to turn the place into a museum.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.
When I became an MP more than five years ago, I entered this place with a very open mind about most things, which is perhaps just as well, including about to the role of the House of Lords. I did not feel strongly about the other place one way or the other, but since I have been an MP, I have developed not only a greater understanding of what the Lords do and how they do it, but quite a deep respect for the important role that they play in our democracy. I am supportive of a second Chamber. I believe in an upper House. It scrutinises and revises. It brings fresh eyes, new ideas and, if I may be so bold, decades of experience and expertise. It can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust.
There have been many examples of that over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment introduced a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, Cross-Bench and Opposition peers spearheaded amendments to create a powerful new corporate criminal offence to prevent fraud in the Economic Crime Act and Corporate Transparency 2023, in a significant moment in the fight against economic crime. That is what good revision looks like. It is responsible lawmaking.
However, I come to this debate with direct experience of when the second Chamber has sadly not behaved responsibly or appropriately. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is fair to say a reasonably well-known piece of legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—I ended up spending a significant amount of time in the Lords.
Following months and months of hard work in the Commons, including countless meetings with outstanding civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, a comprehensive Bill Committee that heard from nearly 50 witnesses, and powerful and emotional debates on Second and Third Readings, the Bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined line by line. It was amended and strengthened, and it passed the elected Chamber with a clear majority on both occasions. Yet despite a clear majority of elected MPs, having engaged at length with their constituents and taken the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the Bill to the other place, what happened next was not what most MPs, however they voted—and more importantly, the public—either expected or deserved.
I was very grateful to the peers who engaged in meaningful scrutiny and discussion about the Bill, and there were many of those. I was in awe at times of their experience and expertise, and it was a pleasure working with them. In some instances we disagreed, but we did so respectfully. Myself and Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the other place, were open to making changes to strengthen the legislation. There were amendments that we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. However, nearly 1,200 amendments were tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, around half of them came from just seven peers. Looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times cruel, it was clear to many that some peers intentionally used every tool at their disposal to bring the legislative process to a standstill.
As we know, the other place, unlike the Commons, is self-regulating. There are no selection of amendments or time limits, so every amendment tabled is likely to be debated. There was seemingly a desire from some peers to slow the process down and disrupt the usual legislative process. In the House of Commons we did our job, but given the shocking example of the amendments tabled in the House of Lords, the same simply cannot be said of the other place.
One peer spoke for four hours and 41 minutes. That is longer than “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” extended edition—a great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. I say that not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask a simple question: was that responsible behaviour and were Members there fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second Chamber? I think not.
Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on the Bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances—public money spent so that a Bill could go nowhere. The public have every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them. I do not think that anyone can say with a clear conscience that that was a good use of taxpayers’ money.
We also have to look at the make-up of the Chamber: 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. I have no problem with religion per se, but nobody elected them. They sit solely because of the position they hold. The only other country in the world that gives clerics seats in its legislature in that way is Iran. In a modern, multi-faith, increasingly secular society, is that fit for purpose? We need a second Chamber that supports and challenges.
Andrew Rosindell
Is the hon. Lady also calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England? Is she asking that the cross be taken off the Crown so that the Christian foundations of this country are no longer part of our constitutional arrangements?
Kim Leadbeater
If I may say so, it is quite a leap of faith to go from the comments I was making about the unelected Chamber to the Church of England, for which I have the utmost respect. I have worked with many people of faith on an agenda around cohesion and the need to bring our communities together—something that I am sure the hon. Member would fully support.
In a multi-faith and increasingly secular society, is it right to have unelected faith leaders in our second Chamber? The Prime Minister himself said:
“I don’t think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that is, in many ways, quite scandalous… If you want to cut the cost of politics, that’s the first place to look.”
He has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country, but we surely cannot do that without looking at the role of the House of Lords. I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: we need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords. I am pleased to speak in support of that today.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate.
I represent the Green party. For many years, we have supported the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a fully elected second Chamber. I am personally fairly agnostic about the exact format of how that should be done, but I fundamentally believe that a basic principle of democracy is that the legitimacy of the lawmakers comes from the trust put in them. I am talking about the authority entrusted in the legislature by the people, the voters—not by the people in charge of a political party who draw up a list from time to time, some of which is clearly related to the amount of money donated for years by some of the people who end up in the other place. It is not even through the legitimacy that an individual achieves within their specialised field of expertise because of many long years of practice in that field.
We should absolutely as a Parliament draw on expertise from across the full panoply of sectors in our country, but we need to ask ourselves who should be making the laws. It should be people who work on the basis of the trust given them by the voters, by the people, and on the basis of every vote having equal weight. That is why I am equally passionate about the importance of a proportionally elected Parliament. Fundamentally, we have a system in the House of Lords that is undemocratic and hugely unrepresentative in all sorts of dimensions and areas of demographics. It is untransparent because so much of the decision making about who becomes a Member is done behind closed doors. How can that be suitable for the 21st century? We have a huge problem with not only the composition but the functioning of the House of Lords.
It is, of course, important that legislation is properly scrutinised and that there are full opportunities to amend it. We have questions to ask ourselves in the Commons about how well we do those things and how well our system enables us to, but we do not fix them with an institution such as the House of Lords—no matter how effective individual Members of the Lords may be. Like colleagues here, I pay tribute to the work of so many Members of the Lords who take their role seriously, bring expertise and pay attention to the job that they are there to do. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud has pointed out, there has been a huge failure in the functioning of the House of Lords because, effectively, the will of a few of its Members has overridden the will of the House of Commons. That cannot be right, so we desperately need reform.
I welcome the proposal from the hon. Member for Stroud of a national commission on reform of the House of Lords. To address a point raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I should say that I would strongly favour the inclusion of a citizen’s assembly as part of that process. I fundamentally believe that a representative sample of the British people, representing all demographics and engaging in the detail and questioning of how we construct our political system, so that the people’s voice is heard, must be a fundamental part of any reform process. We cannot continue as we are—with an undemocratic, unrepresentative, untransparent second Chamber. We must have reform.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. We have time for only one more Back Bencher from the Government side.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir John; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.
I am glad that our new Prime Minister has referred to the importance of rewiring the state. We should absolutely rewire this place, and I offer a solution. I, too, have my doubts about an elected upper Chamber, for reasons that hon. Members have already rehearsed. I think we can preserve the best elements of the other place and also improve on its deficiencies. The best elements are obviously its expertise and its ability to scrutinise and revise—although I must note that the behaviour of a minority of peers during the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was absolutely shameful. The deficiencies are its patchy expertise, an opaque selection process, a lack of legitimacy and democracy, and its unrepresentative nature when it comes to demography, geography and ethnicity.
I would rename the other place and call it a senate. Fifty per cent. of its Members would be experts, the other 50% being citizen senators—a point already made by the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). The House of Lords Appointments Commission does a good job in difficult circumstances, but we need a more transparent and open system. I would recommend that experts are appointed from across the range of sectors in our society and given a limited 10-year tenure in office. If the President of the United States can get a lot done in eight years then I am sure that expert senators would be able to do a lot in 10.
The more interesting half of the upper Chamber, as I am envisioning it, would be citizen senators. They should be selected by sortition, which is a form of democracy. They would serve under the same principles as juries: they forgo their political and other biases and serve in the national interest to scrutinise legislation that comes to them from the elected Chamber, which must have primacy.
Let us rewire this place, starting with the other place. Let us inject more expertise, fairly and transparently appointed, and bring people into the heart of this Parliament through a system of citizen senators to improve, not block, legislation, through the lens of national, not party, interest.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Kit Malthouse. Kit, I can give you a minute if you want.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
In that case, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Lisa Smart.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Thank you, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) both on the way he opened this debate and on how he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform.
The Liberal Democrats have called for a democratic second Chamber for decades. We simply believe that those who make the law should, at some point, be accountable to those who have to obey it. In the other place, that link does not exist. People across the country understand that; they see a Chamber filled by prime ministerial appointment, where a seat in our legislature can follow years of party loyalty or a generous donation. That system ingrains patronage. It feeds the sense that politics is run by and for a small elite and it is one of the reasons why so many people have lost faith in our democratic institutions.
In her excellent speech earlier, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) mentioned the Lords Spiritual—the 26 Church of England bishops who take their seats in the other place. It is not an excessive understatement to say that that arrangement feels a bit outdated. Britain today is a country of many faiths and none, and nobody should have a hand in making our laws simply because of the religious office they hold. It is surely long past time to modernise.
Peers may also be appointed because they are seen to be experts within a field. However, as there is currently no time limit on how long they sit within the Lords, someone could indeed have been an expert in something 40 years ago, but the field has moved on vastly. Yet they still legislate in that area and are viewed as a specialist.
Some say that this issue is not a priority; it does not come up often on the doorstep. But a quick look at my inbox shows that some of my Hazel Grove constituents do indeed care about it enough to contact their MP. I have had constituents write to me about this, including most recently Kellie from Offerton, who argued powerfully that we should have an elected second Chamber. I agree with her.
The Lib Dems supported the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Nobody can seriously defend a place in Parliament being handed down through a family line.
Andrew Rosindell
On that basis, would the hon. Lady abolish Royal Assent for Bills? Does she accept that our constitution is the King in Parliament—the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Is she actually arguing for the abolition of the monarchy?
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman has extended himself several times this afternoon—and I, for one, am here for it. There are many things I would change about the way our country runs. If we were designing a country from scratch, I do not think we would have a Parliament or a monarchy like this. The monarch and the royal family do an important job in all sorts of ways, but I would very much change the relationship between Parliament and the monarch. To answer his question, yes I would.
Removing the remaining hereditary peers on its own does not go anywhere near far enough. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) tabled an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to replace every unelected Member with a fully elected Chamber. Sadly, neither the Labour nor Conservative party supported that, which feels like a missed opportunity to begin the transition. We continue to see events that highlight why we should have an elected and accountable second Chamber. The Mandelson scandal has shown how poorly the current Chamber copes when a Member appointed for life has lost the public’s trust.
According to an Electoral Commission study from 2025, only 14% of respondents trusted politicians. We must all work to improve that level of trust; increasing accountability in Parliament feels like an important place to start. In February, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. Ministers told the public that reform was urgent and that they were talking to other parties. The Removal of Peerages Bill was included in the last King’s Speech, yet we are still to see any wide-scale reform. Can the Minister confirm if, and when, we should expect to see legislation to produce reform in the House of Lords—including, but not limited to, the Removal of Peerages Bill?
The Representation of the People Bill could have been a good place to start to make vital reforms to the way the second Chamber works. It contains welcome measures including votes at 16, steps towards automatic voter registration and a U-turn on the independence of the Electoral Commission—all changes that the Lib Dems have campaigned for. But it says nothing about the Lords or proportional representation, and far too little about the money that flows into our politics.
We want the Government to stop tinkering at the margins and to make the real changes needed to fix the broken political system in which we currently operate. They could take steps now: implement the 2017 Burns report; bring the House of Lords down to 600 Members; introduce the retirement age for peers that Labour promised in its own 2024 manifesto; put the ministerial code into law so that Ministers—
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady should wind up after this intervention.
Gareth Snell
I should declare an interest: my wife is the Deputy Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. As the hon. Lady will know, the Taylor report is bringing in mandatory House of Lords retirement at age 80, so things are progressing.
Lisa Smart
I look forward to seeing that happen at pace; I am sure that is what is going on.
The Government could also move at pace to move power out of Westminster and Whitehall. But none of the steps I just mentioned is a substitute for the end goal. Our second Chamber needs the legitimacy that only a democratic mandate can give it. The Lib Dems will keep making that case until it has been won.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The question of House of Lords reform is obviously not new; successive Administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades—indeed, for more than a century. They have discovered that constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise in opposition than to deliver successfully in government.
The history reminds us of a fundamental truth: constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. We would all agree that the House of Lords is far from perfect—certainly, no one from the official Opposition would suggest otherwise—but it performs a vital constitutional function. It provides thorough legislative scrutiny, brings into Parliament unmatched expertise from the law, science, business and public service, and holds Ministers to account.
Crucially, the House of Lords serves as a vital check on the Executive, ensuring that legislation is properly stress tested and challenging Governments when they get things wrong. Having been a member of the Government Whips Office before the last election, I can say that that is not always convenient for Governments, but it is a core constitutional function. Any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny, and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or advantage. That is where we have serious concerns about the Government’s approach.
As has been said, in its 2024 manifesto Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers; since then, the Government’s actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has about 800 Members—more than when the Government first declared that it was bloated. Apparently, the second Chamber is too big unless Downing Street happens to be the one packing the red Benches. I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise that Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.
There is then the Government’s more radical proposition: abolishing the Lords entirely in favour of an elected senate of the nations and regions. But ambition is no substitute for detail. What powers would such a body possess? How would it be elected? Critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? Those are not minor procedural queries. The fact that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the mover of the motion, seems to answer the question by saying that an unelected panel should decide highlights the fact that Labour had no idea what the radical Lords reform in its manifesto meant and had no plan to deliver it.
If an elected second Chamber can claim equal democratic legitimacy, we invite constitutional gridlock, competing mandates and perpetual legislative paralysis. Our parliamentary system works precisely because it respects the primacy of this elected House, and has done for a century and more, while giving the revising Chamber the freedom to scrutinise. We should not discard that balance for an untested experiment. When will the Minister launch the proposed public consultation? Or are the Government expecting Parliament to sign a blank cheque on Lords reform?
Let me turn to immediate measures. The Opposition engaged constructively with the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee. We agree that peers must actively contribute; however, we hold grave reservations about an arbitrary retirement age of 80. The distinct value of the other place lies in wisdom, institutional memory and lifetime service, so we should assess peers on the quality of their contribution, not the date on their birth certificate. Sensible reform is possible, just as previous Conservative Governments enabled voluntary retirement and expulsions for misconduct. We are ready to discuss appointments, size and standards, but the constitution belongs not to the Government of the day but to our nation.
Andrew Rosindell
On the question of appointments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only right that the third largest party in this country should have some representation in the House of Lords today?
Mike Wood
It is beyond me to decide who should and should not be in the House of Lords any time soon, but I note that last month the hon. Gentleman’s party leader was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new Reform peers, and he said that if that did not work to get Reform’s legislative agenda through, he would have a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords. Reform’s position seems a little confused.
The second Chamber exists not to make life comfortable for Ministers but to hold power to account. The test of any reform is not whether it delivers a pliant Parliament, but whether it serves the British people. That is the test against which His Majesty’s Opposition will hold the Government to account.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to what has been, unsurprisingly, an interesting and enlightening discussion.
Before I respond to some of the specific questions raised, I will first set out the Government’s approach to reforming the House of Lords. The Government have a number of manifesto commitments in this space and are approaching reform of the second Chamber in stages. The first stage is already complete: in the previous Session, Parliament passed legislation to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This important and historic step means that no peer can now be a Member of the House of Lords solely on the basis of birthright.
We are currently in the second stage, and are focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement, which I know Members from all parties are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both Houses that the second Chamber is too big. However, if we ask more Members of that Chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age, new talent will be required, and new people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and fulfil their duties effectively as Members of the other place.
Kit Malthouse
Does the Minister agree that more important than the number of people or how often they attend that House is that it has become clear that individual peers are much more powerful than individual elected Members of Parliament? They have greater privileges and less transparency, and are able to influence legislation to a much greater degree than we are in this elected House. That is fundamentally what lies at the heart of the problem. We can indulge ourselves with tweaks around the edges, as all Governments have done, but in the end, unless we address that fundamental problem, the dissatisfaction will continue.
Mark Ferguson
I know the right hon. Gentleman has strong views on this issue, and I am glad he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure he will continue to contribute. I take his point, but I do not entirely agree. I think the primacy of the House of Commons and of MPs is incredibly important, and I feel that view will, unsurprisingly, be shared in a room full of Members of the House of Commons.
Our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement will have a direct impact on Members of the other place; therefore, during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, the Leader of the House of Lords proposed to establish a dedicated Select Committee, to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber to shape how further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July, and it was debated in the other place in September. The report was genuinely House-led, with over 100 Members submitting evidence to the Committee. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations and will respond substantively later this year. I know that if Members are here for this debate, they will look out for that response.
The historical context of House of Lords reform tells us that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century there were various attempts to fully reform the second Chamber. Some passed, but some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament Acts of 1911 and of 1949, but there were also decades of stagnation and stalled attempts. The previous Labour Government managed to introduce the House of Lords Act 1999, reducing the number of hereditary peers from around 700 to 92.
In the 21st century, a royal commission and joint Committee of both Houses were established, alongside the publication of numerous White Papers during the Blair and Brown years. The coalition Government introduced a Bill that was voted down in the House of Commons. None of those attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second Chamber.
However, during that time it was possible to pass reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation that held cross-party consensus. That is why the Government are focused on conducting a staged approach to House of Lords reform. We are focused on delivering outcomes and keeping promises. Rather than attempting to reform the whole House in a single go, our strategy is to implement important initial reforms that meet our objective of having a smaller second Chamber that better represents the country it serves.
The third stage of reform, which has taken up a large proportion of this debate—I will return to some specific points—focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second Chamber. The Government recognise that previous public consultations and attempts to reform that House did not bring about lasting change. Nevertheless, the Government want to see a second Chamber that better represents the nations and regions—something I am personally very interested in—and I know that hon. Members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving that goal, and we owe it to the public to get the consultation right.
Let me address some of the specific points made by individual Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who referenced the abolition of the House of Lords in 1649. A lot of things happened in 1649, some of which we may not wish to repeat.
It was also enjoyable—and entertaining in a different way—to hear from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity, given that there has not even been continuity in the party he has represented within this Parliament. I think this country needs to change and I believe that, in his own way, he believes the country needs to change, too—otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. I enjoyed hearing him dabble in unicameralism; I was not necessarily expecting that point, which was often championed in this place by the former Labour Member Mike Gapes, a proud unicameralist. There are not many of them in the House, so it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Romford make that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made a point, among many others, about the size and composition of the Lords. The Government believe that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus that the second Chamber is too big. In addressing that, we should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which means we need new talent with up-to-date experience. The introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work. As the Leader of the House has said, we believe the second Chamber works best when it is full time with part-time Members.
My hon. Friend will get a lot of sympathy on the Government Benches for his point, which I will return to in a moment, about the number of representatives from the nations and regions. HOLAC is independent, and vetting for propriety includes checks with Government Departments, agencies and other organisations, including the Electoral Commission. It plays a vital role in vetting all peers and nominating Cross Benchers to the Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) spoke passionately about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and I know her frustrations on that matter. It is obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The Government were and remain neutral on that specific Bill and the issue of assisted dying, and it was up to the other place to determine how that Bill was scrutinised, as with other legislation.
I enjoyed the reference to Kellie from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—although I always warn against weighing the mailbag to find out how important an issue is, as I am sure all Members would agree. I was interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch. That said, the loss of trust in politics comes, alas, at least as much from the Commons as from the Lords. It is unacceptable that disgraced peers can retain their peerages regardless of circumstances. Legislation to enable peerages to be removed was included in the King’s Speech. The Government will announce further details in due course.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), talked about care, caution and balance; I am disappointed that was not the position the Conservatives took with regard to the abolition of the hereditary principle. I once again thank right hon. and hon. Members for this thought-provoking debate on the second Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered House of Lords reform.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth
The clinical strategy will make greater use of neighbourhood and community care in line with our 10-year plan and focus on maternity and planned care treatment. This is backed by £80 million for Southend hospital’s long-standing structural estate problems and support for a neighbourhood health centre in Maldon.
[Official Report, 14 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 184WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth):
Karin Smyth
The clinical strategy will make greater use of neighbourhood and community care in line with our 10-year plan and focus on maternity and planned care treatment. This is backed by support to develop an estimated £80 million scheme to address Southend hospital’s long-standing structural estate problems and support for a neighbourhood health centre in Maldon.
Other Correction
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sorcha Eastwood
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
The following extract is from the debate on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill on 19 October 2026.
Sorcha Eastwood
…The joint framework suggests that the Home Secretary and Defence Secretary could also redact reports, even though MI5 and Military Intelligence are potential subjects of the investigations in question. That has already been found unlawful, but the Government have pressed ahead anyway. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland found the equivalent provisions in the legacy Act 2023 incompatible with the ECHR—in the Dillon judgment. The Government’s appeal is before the Supreme Court but undetermined, yet they have still included the provisions and certified the Bill as ECHR-compatible on the strength of an “expectation” of winning.
[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 850-51.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood):
Sorcha Eastwood
…The joint framework suggests that the Home Secretary and Defence Secretary could also redact reports, even though MI5 and Military Intelligence are potential subjects of the investigations in question. That has already been found unlawful, but the Government have pressed ahead anyway. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland found the equivalent provisions in the legacy Act 2023 incompatible with the ECHR—in the Dillon judgment. The Government’s appeal went before the Supreme Court, which overturned that finding, yet the Government had still included the provisions and certified the Bill as ECHR-compatible on the strength of an “expectation” of winning.
Written Statements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Military Assistance
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)
Recent attacks on civilian airports in Riyadh underscore the importance of standing with our allies to protect innocent lives. Therefore, I am pleased to update the House today on the United Kingdom’s defensive military support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The United Kingdom has a long-standing defence and security partnership with Saudi Arabia and a strong interest in a stable, secure and prosperous middle east.
We unequivocally condemn Houthi attacks and fully support the right of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate Government of the Republic of Yemen to defend themselves. Our objective is to help our partners protect their territory, civilian populations and critical national infrastructure, while supporting efforts to create the conditions for a political resolution to the conflict.
Escalating instability in the region has direct consequences for the United Kingdom. The Red sea and Bab al-Mandab strait are among the world’s most important maritime trade routes. We cannot allow international shipping to be threatened or held to ransom.
Continued instability risks disrupting global trade and energy supplies, increasing costs for British families and businesses, while also undermining regional and international security. The Houthis pose a serious threat to the region; supporting a more secure and stable middle east is firmly in the United Kingdom’s national security and economic interests.
The United Kingdom is currently providing Saudi Arabia with air defence support and air-to-air refuelling for defensive Saudi air operations, including to degrade Houthi military targets in Yemen that threaten the Saudi and Yemeni people. In response to escalating Houthi missile and drone attacks, the Prime Minister has now authorised additional military support.
We are extending the provision of air-to-air refuelling for a further 90 days. In addition, RAF Typhoon aircraft will conduct defensive counter-air operations over Saudi Arabia, helping to protect Saudi cities, civilian populations and critical national infrastructure from Houthi attack. These aircraft will operate in a defensive role and will not conduct offensive strikes against the Houthis.
The United Kingdom will also make an RAF A400M aircraft available to support the movement of matériel within Saudi Arabia in support of its defence. UK military advisers will deploy to support Saudi staff officers.
The Government remain clear that there is no long-term military solution to the conflict in Yemen. We continue to support a UN-led political process as the best route to a durable peace. We remain deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and the suffering experienced by civilians. Alongside our defence engagement, the United Kingdom will continue its diplomatic efforts, humanitarian assistance and work to encourage de-escalation and negotiations between the parties.
We remain in regular contact with my international counterparts, and the Government will keep both the conflict and the UK military contribution under close review. We expect all partners receiving UK assistance to comply fully with their obligations under international law, including in relation to the protection of civilians. We will continue to monitor and assess this as part of our ongoing engagement.
[HCWS394]
Private Parking Code of Practice
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
Today I have laid before Parliament the private parking code of practice, marking the Government’s first step in our commitment to protect drivers across England, Scotland and Wales.
Everyone knows a story of someone getting ripped off through huge charges, often because they have been a couple of minutes late back to their car, or because of something entirely out of their control. The new code will give drivers a range of rights and protections to make these unfair practices a thing of the past.
Drivers will now have a guaranteed minimum five minutes to decide whether to park and 10 minutes to leave without facing a penalty. The maximum charge will be capped at £60 if paid within a fortnight, and frozen at £100 if not. But for honest mistakes, like forgetting a permit, charges will now be limited to £20.
These are just a few examples of the dozens of new rights and protections being brought in for drivers. Operators who fail to comply will now face losing their access to DVLA data to pursue payment.
The code has been laid after receiving over 4,000 consultation responses, which showed drivers want fairer appeals, and independent oversight of the private parking industry. It will now be subject to the statutory parliamentary process set out in the Act. Parliament has a 40-day scrutiny period. The code will come into force 21 days from the point it is issued and replace the industry’s existing sector single code.
The Government will publish a further consultation as soon as possible which will include debt recovery and cover the remaining topics raised by the Competition and Markets Authority in their open letter sent to my Department in April 2026. We are committed to continue to set the bar at the right level and take further steps as necessary, based on sound evidence.
We are also today announcing plans to ban car clocking—the practice of altering a vehicle’s mileage. This will be done through the addition of odometer tampering to schedule 20 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Anyone who buys a second-hand car should have the confidence of knowing the mileage has not been tampered with.
This Government know that if we are to give people hope again, we must show that politics can work for them. Through these everyday fixes for drivers, we are taking on daily frustrations to make life that bit easier.
[HCWS393]
Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 6 Report
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
The chair of the UK covid-19 inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 6 report, which examined the impact of the pandemic on the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the four nations of the UK. I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.
The chair highlights the “devastating impact that Covid-19 had on people receiving and providing care and their loved ones”, including the “immense distress and harm” caused by visiting restrictions. She recognises the extraordinary lengths that care workers and unpaid carers went to in providing care during the pandemic.
I recognise the pain and suffering caused by the pandemic and the lasting impact it continues to have on many people. I am acutely aware of the experiences of people receiving and providing care during the pandemic, and the impact on their wellbeing, dignity and independence, as well as the time being separated from their loved ones. I pay tribute to family and friends who provided care and support, and to the dedication, compassion and professionalism shown by staff and volunteers working across adult social care, who supported and protected some of the most vulnerable people in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
The chair’s report has noted “that for too long the adult social care sector has been undervalued and under-recognised” and entered the pandemic in a fragile state with long-standing workforce shortages, financial pressures and limited pandemic preparedness planning. She concludes that the protections put in place for people receiving care and those supporting them came too late, highlighting weaknesses in testing, isolation and discharge arrangements, PPE availability, guidance, visiting restrictions and data collection. She recommends strengthening pandemic preparedness across adult social care through clearer planning, improved workforce support, more robust inspection and oversight and data collection, and better arrangements for isolation, visiting and end-of-life care.
The Government are committed to learning the lessons from the inquiry and ensuring that the social care sector is prepared for a future pandemic. We will consider carefully the findings and recommendations of the report and respond in due course. We will use these findings to continue development of our adult social care pandemic action plan, and we will also respond to Baroness Casey’s review when it is published.
I have set out my vision for a national care service. This will be person-centred, highly integrated with health services and preventative in its character, helping people lead as independent and fulfilling lives as possible and providing dignity and peace of mind. We are delivering reform through significant additional investment in adult social care, including introducing a fair pay agreement for care workers and developing a new workforce action plan. We are also appointing a champion for unpaid carers, developing neighbourhood health services, and taking immediate action on adult safeguarding, dementia and motor neurone disease.
I would like to thank Baroness Hallet and her team for their thorough work on this report.
[HCWS395]
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: 2026-27 Business Plan
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
I would like to update the House that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s 2026-27 business plan was published yesterday.
The business plan sets out the key business priorities that the DVLA will deliver and any significant changes it plans to make to its services as well as the key performance indicators by which the DVLA’s performance will be assessed.
The business plan allows users of the DVLA’s services to understand the agency’s plans for delivering its vital services to motorists and managing its finances.
The business plan is available electronically on www.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS392]
Offenders Detained in Hospital: Benefit Entitlement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The Department for Work and Pensions will today lay regulations that will remove benefit entitlement from serious and violent offenders detained in hospital. In January 2026, I announced my intention to remove a loophole in the benefits system where offenders detained in hospitals have their living costs met by the NHS while also claiming benefits. This legislation delivers on that promise.
The regulations will remove entitlement from individuals convicted of specified serious offences and with either a section 37 order under the Mental Health Act 1983 or a section 57A order under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It will apply to claimants in receipt of one of four benefits; universal credit, employment and support allowance, state pension and pension credit.
The benefits system plays a crucial role in providing a safety net for millions of people, but it cannot be right that convicted serious offenders can indefinitely receive benefit payments while they are detained in hospital.
The Government have taken a proportionate approach by limiting the change to offences that involve death, serious personal injury or sexual harm. The prescribed offences would typically lead to a custodial sentence, where individuals would generally be unable to receive benefits. The change will not affect those who are unfit to plead or detained in hospital under either a civil order or an offence not included in the regulations.
It is crucial that the benefits system can be trusted by the public and that support is going to those who need it most.
[HCWS391]
House of Lords
Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with the Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues in fulfilling the remit of that role; and what plans they have to deliver on every part of that remit by the end of 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Winterton of Doncaster) (Lab)
Since his appointment in February, the UK Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues has undertaken a range of international engagements to progress work on Holocaust remembrance and education, restitution and tackling antisemitism. The envoy regularly meets international counterparts and domestic stakeholders to discuss practical areas for co-operation on these issues. He reports to the Minister for Human Rights on progress, as outlined in his terms of reference.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she share my view about the urgent need to tackle the poison of antisemitism that is once again seeping into our public life? Does she share my view about the importance of the role that our Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues has to play in that? In that context, what discussions has the envoy had with international partners about advancing outstanding Holocaust-era restitution claims across Europe and other ways of recognising victims of the Holocaust, such as Stolpersteine? What progress has been made with Poland in particular?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. We have a shared responsibility to tackle the abhorrent rise in antisemitism. Recognising the Holocaust is a crucial part of this, which the envoy continues to work on. In September, the envoy attended the post-Holocaust issues special envoys network meeting on movable restitution, where participants agreed to focus on fixed private property restitution. At last week’s Special Envoys and Coordinators Combating Antisemitism meeting in Dublin, the envoy agreed a co-ordinated approach to Holocaust-era restitution in Poland with his US counterpart. He also raised the issue with the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw. The Stolpersteine initiative to which my noble friend referred is excellent. We are supporting communities in Guernsey to lay Stolpersteine outside the homes of residents who resisted the Nazi occupation.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while we are on the subject of antisemitism, is the Minister aware that Parliament has been discussing Israel more than any other issue—not just international issues such as Yemen or Sudan, but even domestic issues such as the cost of living, the NHS and immigration? Does she share my concern that this obsessive focus on the world’s only Jewish state is bound to drive hostility towards people who are identified with it, which is the vast majority of Jewish people in the UK? I think Parliament and the media are playing a large part in the explosion of antisemitism that we are seeing here in Britain.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the role of the media and Parliament in discussing these issues. However, I feel that, as a Parliament, we have to back the work of the special envoys, for example, so that we are supporting that work and endorsing the actions that are taken.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, given that the envoy’s remit includes securing progress on Holocaust-era property and art restitution, where survivors and their families have waited decades for justice, will the Government commit to publishing a clear assessment of progress against every objective, identifying which countries have been pressed to act, what tangible progress has been achieved—not just meetings—and what remains outstanding? How will they ensure that the deadline of the end of 2026 produces measurable progress on restitution rather than simply a record of meetings?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The special envoy reports to the Minister for Human Rights, and we have answered a number of questions about the extensive work that he has undertaken. I might suggest, because I know the special envoy is certainly willing to do this, that he briefs Peers on the work that has been undertaken so far and on future work that is being planned. I hope that might be helpful to Peers, because I know there is a lot of interest in this and it is right that we draw attention to the work that the special envoy has done.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, for 10 years I was the Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues. I commend to the House the work of my successor, Jon Pearce, who has done a remarkable job. However, the noble Lord hits the nail on the head: there is no restitution in Poland that is recognised. That is not an accident; it is a deliberate policy of its Government. I ask the Minister for another attempt at the highest level of government between ourselves, the United States and the European community to press upon Poland the need for action, because this remains a stain on that great nation’s reputation.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question and for the work that he did as special envoy. I wonder if it might be helpful if he came along to the briefing as well, because it is important to show the continuity between the work that he did and the work that Jon Pearce is doing as the current special envoy. The noble Lord makes an important point. I emphasise again that the special envoy recently agreed a co-ordinated approach to Holocaust-era restitution in Poland with his US counterpart. He also raised the issue directly with the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw. With international partners—it is important that that is how we do this—we continue to press Poland to confront this historic injustice and deliver a fair, comprehensive and final settlement of outstanding restitution claims.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, Poland has been an outlier in this for many decades. One feels that it is waiting for everyone to die so it can avoid making restitution. I encourage the Minister to take this issue to the Council of Europe, which is the best forum for this. It should be proposed to Poland that it allow litigation outside Poland, provide access to relevant records, establish a central fund as other countries have done to pay at least partial compensation and preserve the memory of the dispossessed by placing Stolpersteine outside their former homes. It has so far refused to do this, in an attempt to obliterate the memory, as I have seen there for myself.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and her long-standing campaigning on this issue. I know how deeply she feels about it. The special envoy has already been looking at some of the issues she has raised, but I will have further discussions with him about her point on the Council of Europe. Obviously, there are parliamentary delegations to that, so she may wish to raise it with representatives from this House who are on the Council of Europe too.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, building on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Pickles, many Jewish families have not been reunited with their property looted by the Nazis and the special envoy, as has been said, has a responsibility to support restitution. Could the Minister say what estimate the Government have made of the number of British families who have not been reunited with property stolen by the Nazis and when the special envoy last met the independent Spoliation Advisory Panel?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I do not have the figure on the number of British families to hand, but I will certainly see what I can find out and write to the noble Lord. I did not quite hear the body that he named, but I will ensure that the special envoy is aware of the point he has raised and, if it would be helpful, arrange a briefing for him with regard to that international body.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, I have the honour of being one of the representatives of this Parliament to the Council of Europe. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that we will make sure that this is taken up. On another matter, will the Minister ask the envoy to look into the revelations in the ITV documentary shown on Sunday night about some of the antisemitic and other racist remarks made by members of Reform UK and consider what action might be necessary?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his offer with regard to the Council of Europe, of which he is a distinguished member. I am confident he will discuss with the noble Baroness what action may be taken. I will certainly ensure that the special envoy is aware of the programme to which he referred and see whether there is any action that needs to be taken in that area.
Cash and Card Payments: Reduction in Availability
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the financial sector about the decline in acceptance of cash payments and the pending reduction in availability of card payments in favour of payment by smart devices.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring cash remains a viable method of payment. Initiatives with the financial sector include LINK, to ensure that cash machines are available, the Post Office for withdrawal and deposits, Cash Access UK for banking hubs, and others, and we await the Lloyd report. Regulation of these services is done by the FCA. Cash acceptance by businesses remains voluntary and levels of acceptance are kept under review.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I remind the House that, some time ago, I asked the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, if she would come to dinner with me on the proviso that, if I could not access the payment system, she would be the one to pay. We never had the date. Will my noble friend bring pressure to bear on UK Finance to ensure that its terminal approval system mandates tactile covers for flat screen payment devices, so that people with little or no sight can maintain their privacy and have the equality that others take for granted?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
That is a really good question. There are some initiatives from UK Finance that we should commend; for example, its Accessible Cards Code of Practice, where the largest card issuers have committed to common standards for the design of future cards. UK Finance has also developed accessibility guidelines for touch screen chip and PIN devices, as well as an approved list of accessible card terminals and vendors. UK Finance and the British Retail Consortium are working together to identify opportunities to embed these features where customers need them most. However, there is still work to be done, and officials continue to raise the issue with UK Finance. I am more than happy to reinforce that message.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister knows, some of the most vulnerable people rely on cash to budget and administer their daily life. As the Minister pointed out, acceptance of cash is voluntary. Will the Government legislate so that essential services are forced to make sure they always accept cash, because some of the most vulnerable people can operate only with cash?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
There is no current plan for legislation, but this is being monitored. The British Retail Consortium believes that all its members are accepting cash, and I think 99% of corner shops are accepting cash. The Bank of England did a survey where 40% of people accepted that, where they had not been able to use cash, they had found somewhere else where they could get the service they wanted. This remains under review, rather than there being any plan at this stage, but the issue raised is an important one.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this is getting more complicated. In a year or so, payments, including some salaries, will start being paid in stablecoin. What happens if you do not have an electronic wallet? Even if you have a smartphone, how can you use it to access cash from an ATM? Who is going to pay for interoperability, and will it fall on the consumer or the banks but not on the companies that will make increased profits out of stablecoin?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
On people getting hold of cash, there are initiatives taking place. On future payment systems, the National Payments Vision is trying to put together what an entire system using different payments methodologies would look like. Some of this is work in progress, around where we are and where we are going.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, has my noble friend looked at the experience of Sweden, where, a few years ago, there were a number of crashes and online payments were completely halted? The conclusion in Sweden was that it had to have a continuing element of cash payments. Are we looking at that?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
On this question of resilience, yes we are. For example, there is a project with Mastercard to support point-of-sale terminals from 2027 if the system failed, so that the system would still work. There is also a multi-year campaign on preparedness more generally—on the notion of what backups there are if, for example, our payment systems and ATMs failed. Again, that is work in progress, as is the Mastercard project, because it is not here yet.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the truth is that not everyone is sophisticated financially, and those who are not tend to use cash, especially the elderly. There is a lot of concern in the House, given the increasing drift away from cash—for example, in car parks. Will the Government take steps to ensure that those who use cash can play a full part in the life of our nation, and actually get on with this?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
That is a good question. We are on top of the availability of cash through the banking system, but it is the case that acceptance of cash is voluntary, whether it is a car park, a retailer or the rest of it. That issue is under observation, rather than something on which there are direct plans. I point out that the other way that one can deal with this is to make sure that people have a way to pay by card. For example, the reduction of people who do not have bank accounts—from about 1.2 million to 900,000 over the past four years—is positive progress, but the noble Baroness makes a good point.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned a review. Is he consulting pensioner groups across the country on this? They are particularly affected by the lack of cash and by having to use these modern devices. Can he give a commitment that no government department or institution will ever make it compulsory to use them, and that there will always be the option of using a card or cash?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I have talked about some reviews. When I talked about voluntary acceptance, I meant voluntary acceptance. As I say, we have data from the British Retail Consortium, the local shop association and the Bank of England and so on about whether that acceptance is currently a problem. There is no consultation on anything that would make acceptance of cash mandatory right now. Although the pensioner groups will be involved in those areas that I have talked about where reviews are taking place, it is not the case that a review of retail acceptance is taking place right now.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (CB)
My Lords, although taking cash is obviously necessary for some groups, it is an increasingly expensive thing to do for a dwindling amount of cash. Will the Minister consider how one ensures that corner shops and high street shops do not bear the cost of this, while people who are online-only get away scot-free? The cost of providing cash must be borne across the retail and utility sector as a whole.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
As I have explained, the choice is entirely voluntary for the people who accept cash right now. Some 99% of members of the local shop association are accepting cash right now. I realise that there are some fixed costs in accepting cash and that that makes it more and more costly. That is why, as I say, this is under observation by the Government, to make sure that we do not slip to a point where people are not able to buy the things that they need.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the House not to forget the purpose of this Question, which was to ensure that there is access to machinery for those who are either blind or partially sighted. We have moved on to other issues, which are of course important, but the whole point of the Question was to ensure that people with sight issues can access such equipment as is available. Please do not forget that.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
That is absolutely right. The Government recognise that individuals with visual impairments must be able to pay for products easily and safely. Considerable progress is being made on cards, but there is some progress still to be made on how chip and PIN services are used. I will reinforce that message from the House with UK Finance.
Corridor Care
(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 progress they have made on their commitment to end corridor care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, corridor care is unacceptable, and we are tackling its causes by preventing avoidable admissions, improving patient flow and accelerating safe discharge. Just this weekend, we announced almost £140 million for 14 urgent care schemes, alongside 25 new or expanded sites, which are due to open for winter. Despite unprecedented summer demand, around 50 trusts reduced corridor care. We are working to end corridor care by the end of this Parliament.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has reported today that two-thirds of clinical leads say their trust does not count as corridor care patients on chairs in corridors, patients who have been put on chairs in waiting rooms or even patients in corridors on the way in. What action will the Government take, and by when, to make sure that every trust counts every patient, so that we have a true picture of corridor care in this country?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are a lot closer to having a true picture, because in March this year we introduced a consistent national definition of corridor care, which I know the noble Baroness has been very keen on. In addition, for the first time monthly national data has been published since June, which is giving us greater visibility of where corridor care is occurring and, in particular, allowing support to be targeted at the most challenged hospitals.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in the 1990s, when I was a little boy, I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils. Each year, we ran something called National Casualty Watch, which involved local community health council members going into every local casualty department and not only counting the number of people there but asking them how long they had been waiting. Successive Secretaries of State, some of whom are in your Lordships’ Chamber, were not very happy about this, but it had a profound effect on making people realise that this is not a way to run A&E departments. Can my noble friend the Minister assure us that, given that the Government are rethinking their plans to abolish Healthwatch and national Healthwatch, facilities will be available for that sort of thing to continue in whatever new arrangements come forward?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The principle of assessing patient experience, as my noble friend described, is absolutely key to the Health Bill, and I know we will discuss this more. Since my noble friend was a young pup—as he described himself, in a different way—we now have the facilities to be much more transparent and to use data. It is important to say that the collection of data is new—it started only this year and did not exist before—and we are continuing to work with providers to improve the consistency and quality of reporting. That is absolutely key.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given that three-quarters of physicians report difficulties in accessing essential equipment, sometimes including resuscitation equipment, for patients in corridors, and even more report compromised care, what work are the Government now undertaking with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to increase the provision of medical assessment units, particularly working with the clinical governance leads for those emergency departments?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
All of this is important, as the noble Baroness said. We are already undertaking a number of actions and one is about additional urgent care capacity; for example, in total some £2 billion is going into urgent care, particularly capital projects, which the noble Baroness did not specifically mention. The improvement of facilities, which is part of this, is absolutely key, as is getting care closer to home. With the kinds of improvements we are already seeing—for example, the emergency departments at Basildon and North Tees have had refurbishments—and by working with clinical leads, we will improve a long-standing situation that should never have been normalised and should only be exceptional.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I am sure that the Minister has seen some of the hospitals that have solved this problem. Is there a problem with hospitals that have overcome what is a very difficult problem sharing that information with other hospitals that are struggling? It always amazes me: when you see best practice, you just do not understand why it is not shared. If they do not voluntarily share it, is there anything the Minister can do to make them share it?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. While we are very mindful of the need to make more progress, sharing best practice is key to how we are improving things across the whole pathway. The majority of corridor care occurs in a small number of trusts, and that is why we are putting in targeted teams to work with those trusts to do exactly what the noble Baroness suggests.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I pay tribute to the NHS staff who provide vital care under immense pressure. Recent reporting from the Queen’s Medical Centre in my diocese of Southwell and Nottingham has highlighted their compassion and professionalism. Does the Minister agree that the challenge of corridor care is one not only of clinical safety and privacy but of human dignity? Hospital chaplains provide invaluable pastoral and spiritual support to patients and families at moments of vulnerability and distress. What consideration have the Government given to ensuring that access to such support is not diminished when patients are cared for in temporary settings?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I pay tribute to the service provided by hospital chaplains, because they extend support to those of all faiths and none, and that is crucial. Corridor care is not an acceptable normalisation. We want to end it by the end of the Parliament. I agree that dignity is very much part of it. The guidance given to hospitals is that, in exceptions where there has to be corridor care, they must take account of supporting the patient in the best way possible. For example, that can, of course, include support from hospital chaplains.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that the department, or maybe NHS England, has been able to identify the hospitals where corridor care is at its worst levels. What specific targeted support does the Minister’s department or NHS England intend to offer to those particular hospitals in order to reduce the high levels of corridor care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are putting in specialist teams to work with those particular hospitals. The Secretary of State has made it quite clear that ending corridor care for children is an absolute priority. As I said to the noble Baroness earlier, we are ensuring that best practice is applied. Because of the additional funding, we have been able to and will be able to extend capacity. The noble Lord will have looked at the areas that are receiving targeted financial support. Where we have greater levels of corridor care, our teams are working with those hospitals to say, “Why is this the case? This is how to sort it out”, and make sure that they can. The small number of trusts means that there is greater reliance in some areas than others, and that is not all right.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, what additional support are the Government going to give to the healthcare staff in accident and emergency departments, who are feeling very demoralised following a difficult summer and now face a difficult winter? Most importantly, in preventive terms, is it not time that we linked care in the community by subcontracting some beds in care homes, so that patients who could be discharged immediately if that was available can be, to enable things to be a bit better for staff and patients this winter?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I share the views of the noble Baroness, as I do the comments of the right reverend Prelate about the role that our healthcare staff play. The noble Baroness is right about the connection with social care. Better patient flow and discharge actually rely on that, and that is why we have published the Model Emergency Department, the Model Acute Pathway and the Model Discharge Pathway, so that we can see earlier assessment, timely senior clinical review, improved discharge and better patient flow, because it is down to beds and also to pressure. If there is one thing we are promoting in terms of prevention, it is for everybody to get a flu jab who is eligible, because we want to prevent people unnecessarily presenting at hospital. That will assist us greatly.
Drought: Impact and Policies
(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 drought statuses in England; and what policies they plan to implement, if any, to reduce the likelihood and impact of future droughts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, over 80% of England is in drought, and that affects around 50 million people. Parts of the country have entered severe drought for the first time, due to depleted reservoirs following an extremely dry summer. This Government are committed to a twin-track approach to improving water resilience and have secured £104 billion of private investment to fund urgent action to improve water efficiency and reduce leakage, alongside new supply infrastructure, which includes nine new reservoirs.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has stated, only last week a severe warning for drought was declared in parts of southern England. Given earlier warnings about the severity of the El Niño effect this winter, what discussions have been held with the National Drought Group about conserving and storing water supplies as part of that monetary allocation during periods of persistent rainfall over the wintertime, including the removal of barriers to the construction of farm reservoirs, which would help protect food security throughout the year?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government engage with water companies, the Environment Agency, the Met Office and key sectors through the National Drought Group, because we want to ensure proper co-ordinated action. The Met Office regularly updates on the potential impacts of El Niño, which helps to ensure that the group is prepared to respond. Of course, the impacts of El Niño are uncertain, but we are aware that it could contribute to continued dry conditions into autumn and winter, which could further reduce the opportunities to refill reservoirs.
Defra has announced a further £15 million of support to build on-farm reservoirs through the water management grant. To enable farmers to make better use of water during wetter periods, Defra is also taking steps towards a more dynamic abstraction licensing system. The Environment Agency has committed to reviewing its approach to abstraction and has introduced a regulatory position statement, which brings reservoir refill season forward from November to October.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with the severe droughts declared in parts of the south-west and south-east, and water companies still losing nearly 3 billion litres a day to leakage, the clean water Bill is needed now? Are the rumours true that it has been delayed again? Can she tell us when it will be introduced, given that she told us last month that she hoped to bring it shortly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that we are actively working on the water Bill. It is an absolute priority, not just for the department but for the Prime Minister. We absolutely need to get it right. There is a lot of work going into it. A lot of changes are needed to the water industry if we are going to really make the difference that we want to make. In fact, I have only today had a meeting where I have discussed it, so it is something that we are actively working on.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, may I commend to the Minister the report from the Environment and Climate Change Select Committee, on drought preparedness and the need to have environmental and economic assessments every year before the next drought? Obviously, I regret the situation in Yorkshire, where we have entered drought for the first time. This morning I was at a meeting of the Association of Drainage Authorities. It said that there is a crying need for small on-farm reservoirs but the barriers are still there. These are taxation barriers, permitted development and planning barriers, and others. Will she please use her best offices to make sure that these barriers are removed and that small on-farm reservoirs can proceed to be built?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. One of the issues, not just of on-farm reservoirs but others around farming, is the planning system. We as a department have been working very closely with MHCLG to update planning guidance in order to strengthen support for agricultural infrastructure, whatever form that infrastructure takes. The National Planning Policy Framework, which was published in August, is looking to start to do this, and we are working with industry to look at further planning reforms that we could bring in that would help.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to leakage. I believe it is still government policy to try to reduce leakage by 50% by 2050. In view of the severe drought conditions this year and generally, would it not be wise to have a more ambitious target?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I always like ambition—it is a very good thing—but we have to set targets that are attainable and achievable. As the noble Duke said, water companies have to halve leakage across the industry by 2050—that is compared with 2017-18 levels. We saw a 12% reduction in total leakage last year, and we want to continue that and move more quickly, so we have invested £720 million through the current Ofwat price review period in smart technology, including meters, to help identify and reduce leakage. I am sure that if we can move more quickly, we will be very happy to do so.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the kind of climate that we are all now entering into, what thought have the Government given, perhaps in the water Bill, to the construction of desalination plants?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, desalination is an important part of moving forward when we have concerns around the amount of water that we have, and we are very keen to work more proactively in this space. One thing I am sure my noble friend is aware of is that water companies need to demonstrate that schemes will maintain secure water supplies. That includes the eight new desalination schemes that have been proposed in the current water resourcing management plan, so it is something we are keen to move forward with.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer and landowner. Water company investment in nature-based solutions to drought resilience, as well as flood prevention and water quality, is disadvantaged against grey infrastructure due to the continued scepticism of the Environment Agency and the bureaucratic approach of other arm’s-length bodies. Re-wetting, decanalising, riparian planting and peatland restoration demonstrate strong results in short timeframes while delivering significant benefits to our rural economy and to nature restoration. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will remove this bias in the forthcoming clean water Bill and allow the acceleration of nature-based solutions?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, I am not in a position to tell noble Lords what will be in the Bill, but I can assure the noble Lord that nature-based solutions are a very important part of the Government’s work in managing the situation regarding climate change and drought. Providing more integrated sustainable solutions is where we make the difference—even things such as creating better soil quality can make a huge difference. The three main aims around nature-based solutions for water that we are looking at are better groundwater resources, improving low flows in rivers, and improving our resilience to drought. We need to look at the effective schemes that we can bring forward, and that does not have to be just through the water Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Thames Water, which I am a customer of, will run out of money within the next few weeks. Eighteen months ago it was given £3 billion to keep going and now it is asking for a further £2.4 billion. Why on earth is Thames Water not in special administration already?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The simple answer to that is that the rules for special administration make it quite difficult for the Government to put Thames Water into special administration while it is still financing itself. I know the noble Baroness is saying that it is about to run out of money, but on paper and in its finances, it is continuing to operate as a company and to provide water. The question is: how long are the Government prepared to accept the current situation? That is something we are looking at.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the Minister to reflect on the irony of the Liberal Democrats raising the issue of water shortages in the south-east and south-west, when their party was at the forefront of campaigning against new reservoirs—
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank my fan club—particularly at Didcot in the Thames Valley.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We had a Question on reservoirs last week, and I think I made the point then that I am going to make now, which is that people are desperate for reservoirs before they have been built, because they do not have enough water. As soon as you try to build a reservoir, all of a sudden people do not want it in their area. We have to come together as a country and sort this out.
Tackling Antisemitism: National Security Adviser
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of growing antisemitism and recent violence against British Jews, what assessment they have made of the role of the National Security Adviser in tackling antisemitism in the UK to protect Jewish communities.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I start by commending the noble Lord for his work in tackling the scourge of antisemitism. The role of the National Security Adviser is to co-ordinate security and intelligence issues of strategic importance across government and support the National Security Council. Combating antisemitism is a whole of government and a whole of society effort. This includes ensuring that national security capabilities are deployed effectively to protect Jewish communities, individuals and sites, but it cannot just be about security. That is why this Government are taking steps across education, health, culture and in the online space to go further to ensure that Jews in Britain are able to go about their day-to-day lives without fear.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the vast majority of British Jews identify as Zionists, so when Zionists are the target, most of the British Jewish community are the target. When there are anti-Israel leaflets outside Jewish schools and “Boycott Israeli Goods” stickers on ambulances in Golders Green, weeks after others were set alight, this is not protest; it is the singling out and intimidation of British Jews. Only yesterday, a woman pushing a baby in a pram in Stamford Hill was punched in the face. What is needed is not more and more money or higher and higher walls. I urge His Majesty’s Government and the National Security Adviser to take a good look at their policies in the Department for Business, Science, Innovation and Trade and, specifically, in the FCDO and examine how they are adding to the problem.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is no place for antisemitism in this country, and this Government will do everything we can to tackle it. I would add to what I said previously only by saying that British Jews should not be held to account for actions by the Israeli Government. We will do whatever we can, and I know that Jonathan Powell will do whatever he can, to tackle antisemitism in this country.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, in agreeing strongly with my noble friend’s response to this Question on antisemitism, for the record can I get it clear, because there is a lot of loose language around this, that to support strongly the establishment of a Palestinian state is not antisemitic, to criticise the current Government in Israel is not antisemitic and to condemn as loathsome the views of one or two members of the current Israeli Government towards Palestinians is not antisemitic either?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is also true, and I agree with my noble friend on that point.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, may I express agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said? Does the Minister agree that combating antisemitism is the responsibility of not just the Government but all responsible political parties? Does she also agree that we should celebrate the extraordinary contribution of the Jewish community to this country in science, the arts, business and the law—although, on sport, perhaps not so much? The Jewish community should not be defined by antisemitism.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord on that point; he expressed it better than I could.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. It is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I believe that the previous speaker made the big mistake—I hope that the Minister will comment on this—of conflating what is happening in Israel and the Palestinian territories, with what is happening in the UK. In the UK, we are plagued by increasing antisemitism. Can the Minister assure the House that the National Security Adviser is not overinfluenced by the comments that his wife has made in national newspapers this week?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The views to which the noble Lord alludes are held by an individual who does not represent this Government in any capacity. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said earlier today, the person concerned is the wife of the National Security Adviser, not the National Security Adviser. In political discourse, it is important to maintain a distinction between government employees and their families.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Campaign Against Antisemitism has expressed serious concerns about the public comments of Sarah Helm, the wife of the National Security Adviser, to whom the Minister just referred. The Government have said, quite rightly, that Sarah Helm does not represent them. However, in a post during a public exchange on X last night, in response to the question of whether her husband was involved in the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, Sarah Helm denied it and said, “Nope”. Can the Minister tell the House how Ms Helm knew whether her husband was involved? None of us knows who in government was involved in that decision. How does she know who was involved?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It was the Government’s decision, and the Government’s position on Palestine Action is clear. The Court of Appeal found that Palestine Action carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who took part in them and promoted the use of violence. The proscription of Palestine Action does not affect lawful protest. The Government’s position on Palestine Action is clear, Parliament has decided that it should be proscribed and we continue to hold that view.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is of course possible to criticise Israel, its Government and its policies without being antisemitic. However, if Israel is held up to standards that are not applied to other countries and is singled out for criticism that is not made of other countries, and if the only country against which you campaign happens to be the only Jewish one, please do not tell me that you are not an antisemite. I have to say this as well: Parliament’s obsessive focus on Israel, with the constant and false allegations made against Israel and its conduct, is driving antisemitism in the UK. Every party in Parliament needs to consider this very carefully.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government remain supportive of a two-state solution and maintain the right of Israel to exist. One can hold two views, I think: we can have legitimate criticism of the Israeli Government alongside supporting the country’s right to exist.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we still have time for questions from more than one Bench. We will go to the Labour Benches first.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, following my letter to the new Prime Minister outlining some serious issues with the security and well-being of the Jewish community, I was delighted to hear that last week, for the first time in our history, the National Security Council was convened specifically to discuss the Government’s response to, and actions on, antisemitism. Does the Minister agree that, going forward, a cross-government response to antisemitism is crucial—not one that hides in individual departments but one where the whole of government, using the principles that the National Security Council will have met on, take forward a whole of government response?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have to have a whole of government response, as otherwise we cannot tackle this. I thank my noble friend for his work and his review into antisemitism and racism in the NHS and the healthcare system. We are expecting the findings of Sir David Bell’s independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges shortly. Unless we look at and tackle antisemitism wherever it is found and wherever it manifests its ugly head, we will not tackle it effectively. This will definitely require an all-government, whole of government approach.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would normally resist making spouses responsible for each other’s pronouncements, but this situation is worrying for a highly sensitive position. If vetting for the post of National Security Adviser encompasses the family and household, were Sarah Helm’s posts ignored or were they accepted as okay?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I stated previously, the views are held by an individual who does not represent the Government in any capacity. I can only repeat that again to the noble Baroness.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, while there is still time, would the Minister welcome an intervention at this point from representatives of the Green Party?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is not up to me to say who should ask me questions.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, can I ask a very simple question? It is 82 years since they first opened the camps that showed the abysmal way in which 6 million Jewish people were treated, yet 82 years later we are having a rise in antisemitism. Can we not have an analysis of why this is happening? All I find is people saying, “Yes, it’s going up”. Where is it coming from? Why is it that I talk to hundreds of young people who say, “I am not an antisemite. I am an anti-imperialist”. Where is this coming from?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I respect the noble Lord’s views. This Government will look at where the antisemitism is coming from and how best we can tackle it. I would say that we can best tackle it with a cross-government approach, but we also definitely need a cross-party approach to tackling the scourge of antisemitism.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, like many on these Benches, I am deeply concerned by the rise of antisemitism, hate crime and violence in this country. Following the publication of MI5’s recent domestic threat update, it was deeply concerning to hear that the security services have dealt with so many individuals seeking to carry out attacks against synagogues, mosques and other faith buildings. I thank His Majesty’s Government for the places of worship protective security scheme. However, has any assessment been made by His Majesty’s Government of whether this provision is enough, given the current level of threat?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We will always look at what more we need to do. As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, the Home Office is committing a considerable amount of money to the Jewish community protective security fund. We are clear that we need to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said and review public order and hate crime legislation to make sure that we both protect but also prosecute where appropriate.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a point arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said about how the word Zionism is used as a sort of cover? It would help your Lordships’ House and the country if the Minister would explain how the Government define Zionism.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think we would define it as the right for Jews to have their own homeland. We are really supportive of the two-state solution. At times that looks like it is an impossible goal, but we remain committed to a two-state solution and the right of Jewish people to their homeland.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, to pick up on a point that I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, about outside, often people who hate one minority community also hate another. In my case, we said that people who hate us probably hate us both. But can I actually raise a point with the Minister around a loophole that we see often used by councillors who make comments and are then referred to standards boards? It is often referred to as something they did in their capacity outside being a councillor. I am sorry, but if people are elected to public office, we need to hold them to account for what they say. Maybe the Government need to go and look at that loophole, because too many councillors up and down this country, not just in the vile ITV investigation that we saw, are getting away with saying things that, while holding public office, they claim they said in a personal capacity.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would agree with the noble Lord that people need to take responsibility for what they say. I am very happy to take his suggestion away.