Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I start by acknowledging, on VE Day, the debt that we all owe to that great generation who sacrificed so much for our freedom. We will remember them and their sacrifice forever.
The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, will make recommendations to transform our water system and clean up our waterways. The recommendations will form the basis of further legislation to fix our broken water system. A public call for evidence that ran for eight weeks and closed on 23 April received a very high number of responses. Those will be shared in detail when the commission publishes its recommendations. Sir Jon and the commission have held more than 130 meetings, including with regulators, environmental groups, campaigners, investors, water companies and consumer bodies. Engagement will continue ahead of the commission’s recommendations to the Government in a few weeks.
Emma Lewell
I echo the Secretary of State’s initial comments. South Shields has a long-standing problem with sewage being dumped in the sea at Whitburn. Just this week, Little Haven beach was handed a brown flag, and myself and local campaigners are completely fed up. The Environment Agency, Ofwat, Northumbrian Water, the council and the last Government all completely ignored our concerns. We have already requested a meeting with the Water Minister, and I hope she will confirm today that the meeting will happen very soon.
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her tireless work to represent the concerns of people in South Shields about those terrible problems with water pollution. Of course, my hon. Friend voted for the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which has given the regulator many more powers, including the power to ban undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses. I am sure she will be interested to read, as will I, the findings from the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe when they come forward in a few weeks’ time.
Liz Twist
As we act to protect our rivers and waterways from pollution, regulation will be important. The Environment Agency’s resources were decimated under the Conservatives. How will the 2025 Act give the Environment Agency the powers it needs to hold polluting companies to account?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government cut resources for regulation in half, and that is one of the ways water companies were able to get away with so much pollution. We have changed the law to allow regulators to recover prosecution costs so that they can carry out further prosecutions and stop those who have been polluting our waterways.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Can I make an appeal to the Secretary of State, and indeed his whole Front Bench, not to make farmers a scapegoat in any water reforms? Clearly, where farming and farmers are involved in bad practice, they should be penalised, but social industrialists, other employers, and indeed those in the public sector, might also pollute rivers. Water is a critical part of the food supply chain and agriculture. Farmers look after the environment on all our behalf—in the right way most of the time. My appeal to the Secretary of State is to please get the National Farmers’ Union and farmers involved and not let them become scapegoats.
Steve Reed
I of course agree with the right hon. Member. We are supporting farmers, many of whom were affected by very severe flooding recently, with the farming recovery fund. I am engaging constantly, and will be again today, with the National Farmers’ Union about those issues and many others.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
By 2050 we will need more than 4,000 additional megalitres of water a day, with rising temperatures resulting in a fivefold increase in drought risk. That is concerning news for farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton, given the necessity of water for livestock and crops. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to consult farmers about reforms to the water sector, and does he know how important water is to food production?
Steve Reed
We recognise the importance of that point. The hon. Lady will be aware that, at the close of the price review process, we secured £104 billion of investment now and over the next five years to improve water infrastructure and ensure that we get water to where it needs to be. We have also increased flooding funding so that we can take the water away from where it should not be. All of that will support food production as well as many other sectors of the economy.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Officials and I continue to maintain regular engagement with the Scottish Government on many issues. While sewage overflow monitoring is a devolved matter for Scotland, we continue to share best practice wherever appropriate. The SNP Government should follow this Government’s lead and introduce robust legislation to clean up their waterways.
Chris Murray
The beautiful beaches of my constituency are marred by sewage-related debris. In Scotland, under the SNP, we do not even properly monitor sewage overflows. Meanwhile, in England, the Labour Government are making great strides to improve water quality—how I wish we had that in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State commit to working as constructively as possible with his counterparts in the Scottish Government so that they can learn from here how we can improve water quality in Scotland?
Steve Reed
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for highlighting the pollution and sewage on beaches that so concern his constituents. It is deeply disappointing that the SNP Government in Edinburgh are not following the UK Government’s lead in tackling sewage pollution. I agree with my hon. Friend that his constituents, like mine, and everyone else in Scotland and right across the UK deserve to enjoy sewage-free lakes, rivers and beaches. Sadly, that does not seem to be what they are getting from the SNP.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been subjected to an enormous increase in their water bills. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that his water review will seek ways to prevent the costs of water companies’ mismanagement being passed on to their customers?
Steve Reed
I am sure that the hon. Lady will be reassured to hear that the Government have ringfenced money that is earmarked for investment in water infrastructure so that it can no longer be diverted for payments on bonuses and dividends. If water companies attempt to do anything of the kind, the money will be refunded to their customers through a discount on their bills.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I add my voice to all those paying tribute to the greatest generation as we all remember VE Day. I know that many of us will be travelling back to our constituencies to join in celebrations up and down the country.
It is no wonder that the public are angry about paying the price for Conservative failure. By allowing water infrastructure to decay on their watch, the previous Conservative Government not only failed to ensure proper regulation of the industry but drove up costs of essential repairs, resulting in increased bills for customers. While I cannot undo the damage of the past, I can ensure that it never happens again. That is why funding for vital infrastructure has been ringfenced by this Government so that it can never be diverted for bonuses or dividends.
Rachel Blake
Roberto, one of my constituents, has seen his water bill go up by nearly 45% in the last two years, and other constituents have contacted me to say that their bills have nearly doubled in that time. I am pleased by what the Minister said about holding the previous Government to account for their failure to invest in infrastructure. What more can the Government do to hold Thames Water to account for its failure to invest in infrastructure, its poor service and these rip-off charges for consumers?
Emma Hardy
Roberto is right to feel angry about his bill increase, the past performance of water companies and the toothless regulation under the previous Government. We have already taken action to deliver our manifesto promise to hold water companies to account, ban unfair bonuses and introduce criminal liability with up to two years in prison. We have also created the water delivery taskforce to ensure that all water companies, including Thames Water, deliver on their promised infrastructure improvements. The Government will always support those struggling with their water bills. Indeed, this Labour Government and water companies are more than doubling the social tariff support over the next five years.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
What assessment has the Minister made on the cost of water bills from increases to regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity? I wrote to her in December about that and she replied in January. I am thankful for her answer, although it was slightly on the complacent side because she said that regulation 31 does not cause a problem to water quality just now. That is true, but the industry is burning down its assets to chemicals and equipment that have been regulation 31-tested, so a problem is coming. What assessment has the Minister made of when the solution will be delivered, and what effect will that have on water bills?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Everything relating to regulation of water is supported and looked at through the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which carries out an assessment to make sure we have the best water quality in the whole country. If he requires any further detail, he is welcome to write to me again and I will make sure I find it.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
On VE Day, it is important that we remember the huge contribution made by fishermen, fishing communities, farm workers and agricultural workers during the last war to keep the country fed. Later today, I shall unveil a plaque to the members of the Women’s Land Army, one of whom was my aunt, Jean Mead. They made a fantastic contribution during that period.
We negotiate a range of fishing quotas, and any future quotas will be agreed only if that is in the national interest. I am pleased that we are engaging closely with industry, trialling new methods to shape future allocations that will both protect stocks and support communities.
Harriet Cross
A recent poll by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation showed that 87% of Scots believe the UK should control access to our fishing waters. Two-thirds of seafood landed in the UK comes into Scotland and it is vital to our economy and to many of our coastal communities. Will the Minister show the House and rural and fishing communities across the country that the Prime Minister will not negotiate away any control of our waters during his EU reset later this month?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I recognise the importance of the Scottish fishing fleet and its contribution. She will have to wait a little longer to hear the full details of the outcomes of any negotiations, but I have to remind her that the sense of betrayal across fishing communities came under her Government’s watch.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
On this 80th anniversary of VE Day, I pay tribute to the city of Coventry, which suffered so grievously in the blitz. The commemoration was marked at the old and new cathedrals with the lighting of the torch for peace, a brilliant initiative from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to mark the contribution of my city to the war effort.
Natural England’s work to consider the Surrey hills national landscape boundary variation has reached the conclusion of the second statutory consultation phase. The responses received will be completed shortly and the analysis of those and the results will be published in early summer.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
On VE Day, I remember the role of Dunsfold aerodrome in my constituency, which played a vital role in the battle of Britain.
I thank the Minister for her response. She knows that the proposed expansion of the Surrey hills national landscape will have a huge impact by improving biodiversity and natural protection in villages such as Dunsfold, Tongham, Bramley, Wonersh and Shamley Green in my constituency. Before she makes the final decision on whether to go ahead, will she spare the time to meet me so I can explain to her just how important the expansion is to my constituents?
Mary Creagh
I am always happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. This and the Yorkshire wolds are under active consideration, as I am sure he is aware. There is a legal process to be followed ahead of that, but I know his constituency and will be very happy to meet to discuss the matter further.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defences in the worst condition on record. We are investing a record £2.65 billion in a thousand projects to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Following the recent storm season, serious flooding damaged the foundations of Radyr cricket club and exposed electrical cables, which forced the club to close and cancel practice until the site was made safe. The club is also situated next to important electricity infrastructure, which means up to 930 customers could be put at risk of disruption. I have been working with Councillor Helen Lloyd Jones to try and find a way forward between National Grid and Natural Resources Wales to establish who will take responsibility for securing the river bank and the electricity infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are at an impasse, and my constituents continue to be vulnerable to further flooding. Will the Minister meet me to establish what the UK Government can do to try and help break that impasse before the next storm season hits?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are facing with flooding—I know at first hand how disruptive and awful flooding can be. As I am sure he knows, flooding is a devolved matter in Wales, but I would of course be happy to work with him and to facilitate the meeting that he requested.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Next month, a planning application for a biodigester near Haverhill and Withersfield in West Suffolk will be decided. It is the wrong location for many reasons, not least the risk of flooding as the proposed site is on flood risk zone 3 land. What are the Government doing to prevent development on land susceptible to flooding?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, the national planning policy framework is clear that where development in areas at risk of flooding is necessary, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, safe for the development’s lifetime and, importantly, will not increase flood risk elsewhere. We are also looking at other measures, such as sustainable urban drainage systems, to be included in planning as well.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
On the 80th anniversary of VE Day, I thank those who fought for our and Europe’s freedom and, indeed, those who worked our land and kept our nation fed.
Our peatlands store 26 times more carbon than forests. They improve water quality and protect communities up and down the UK from flooding. The Nature Minister rightly called peatlands our “country’s Amazon rainforest” and launched a consultation to protect them. She is right, because once they have been destroyed, they can never be replaced. At the very same time, the Energy Secretary plans to rip up 2,000 hectares of protected peatland on historic land in West Yorkshire for a vast wind farm development, opening up communities to flooding and destroying the peatlands that Labour says it wants to protect. How can the Government claim to be protecting our irreplaceable peatlands when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is actively considering destroying one of our most environmentally important landscapes in the country?
Emma Hardy
I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s ability to weave a question for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero into a question on flooding. He will have heard from the Nature Minister how important peatlands are and how essential they are for this country and heard our commitment to protecting them.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have discussed this serious issue in the Chamber before, and I know how seriously Members on both sides of the House take it. The Government make it an absolute priority to protect farmers from the dangers of this awful threat. The Government have stepped up measures to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease following confirmed cases in Slovakia and Hungary. Imports into Northern Ireland of live animals and susceptible meat products are prohibited from within the restriction zones surrounding the affected premises in Hungary and Slovakia.
Robin Swann
I join in the Secretary of State’s words on VE Day, especially regarding Northern Ireland’s contribution to our armed forces and through the armaments we supplied.
When I contacted the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland about his responsibilities, he actually told me that the issue no longer sits within his ministerial responsibility, but comes directly under the control of the Environment Secretary. What practical steps is the Minister taking to protect Northern Ireland farmers, especially in regard to the recent announcement of a case of African swine fever on 2 May in Slovakia, within the same geographical area as those foot and mouth outbreaks?
Daniel Zeichner
We work closely with the Minister in Northern Ireland for exactly the reasons that he would expect. We take this extremely seriously. There are a range of threats in Europe, and that is why we have not only put in place the long-established and well-trialled measures, but added additional protection measures to ensure that we are properly protected.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Farmers in Northern Ireland who fear foot and mouth, and even dog owners like me, rely on good veterinary support, but this is no longer the world of James Herriot; a number of large companies dominate the market. The Competition and Markets Authority says that remedies are needed. Does the Minister agree, and will he commit to reviewing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is clearly no longer fit for purpose?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can assure him that I and Baroness Hayman, who leads on this in the Department, are very well aware of the recent reports and the antiquated nature of the legislation. We will come back with proposals in due course.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues before. I know that she shares my passion for achieving the transition to the nature-friendly farming that we all want. The Government are investing £5 billion in farming over the next two years—the highest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. Through a range of measures delivered through the Government’s environmental land management schemes, we are supporting farmers to implement nature-friendly farming practices. We now have more farmers than ever in nature-friendly farming schemes, and reform in the sustainable farming incentive will target funds fairly and effectively towards food, farming and nature priorities. We will announce further details later this year.
Ellie Chowns
On behalf of the Green party, on this special day of commemoration, I join colleagues from across the House in paying tribute to all those who sacrificed so much to resist and defeat fascism 80 years ago.
I thank the Minister for his response. We have indeed discussed these issues before and will continue to do so, I am sure. At the weekend, I spent time on two farms in my constituency—at both I met groups of farmers, including members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who told me of their huge frustration at being let down by the Government’s policy on farming and the lack of support. They recognise how vital farming is, including the transition to nature-friendly farming, for this country’s food security, nature protection and climate action. Does he agree with the farmers in my constituency about how vital the transition to nature-friendly farming is for those issues, and will he give us a date for when he will introduce such policies—
Daniel Zeichner
I am always interested to hear reflections from farmers. I have spoken to other members of the Nature Friendly Farming Network who are very pleased with the progress being made, but of course we want to go faster and further. We have over 50,000 people in the schemes and more money is being spent than ever before. We must recognise the important progress being made.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this extremely serious issue. To prevent the further spread of disease and manage the risk of avian influenza, DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have implemented well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and support recovery in local communities. Avian influenza prevention zones are in force across the UK. To further protect farmers and help communities, we are currently investing £208 million in the future of the biosecurity labs at Weybridge.
Sir John Whittingdale
Does the Minister agree that avian influenza remains an existential threat to the poultry industry, and—now that the French have decided to vaccinate their ducks—will he agree to the National Farmers Union request that we introduce the vaccination of seasonal turkeys in order to protect the entire industry?
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes a well-informed point. Vaccination has been considered for some time. There are trade issues, but as he says, the fact that the French are changing their position is useful. The Government are committed to exploring options for vaccination, and a cross-Government and industry avian influenza vaccination taskforce has been established. It published an initial statement on 7 March and will report more fully this summer.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Avian influenza, sadly, is still very much with us, having devastated both wild and domestic birds in recent years. With bluetongue still here, African swine fever on our doorstep and, alarmingly, foot and mouth outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, we face significant threats to our biosecurity. Disease surveillance, vaccination and control are crucial, centred with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which I thank in these challenging times. When will this Government finish the work that we Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion in 2020 to redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge? Labour’s repeatedly re-announced £208 million is a start, but when will it commit the further £1.4 billion for this critical national infrastructure, for the sake of UK agriculture and our national security?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words and his praise for the APHA. These are extremely important subjects. We face a range of threats. That is why the Government have increased security in terms of personal imports through the short straits in particular. On his point about Weybridge, we have had this discussion before. There is a major programme under way, which will take a number of years. It is already a world-leading facility, and this Government are committed to providing the funding that Weybridge needs to do its job. We are absolutely committed to that, which is why we have announced £208 million this year.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We are developing stronger climate adaptation objectives and improving the framework for action.
Tom Gordon
With the effects of climate change already being felt, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others have urged the Government to prioritise infrastructure resilience. Following the Court ruling on the third national adaptation programme, the Government pledged to strengthen the approach, but the Climate Change Committee called this “ineffective”. When will the Department publish its updated plans, and how will it strengthen them?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Of course, we welcome the Climate Change Committee’s assessment. The Government recognise the need to go further and faster to prepare for the impacts of a warmer world. For example, we are already taking active steps to include climate adaptation in our flood programme. For the first time, the Environment Agency’s flood risk modelling integrates potential impacts of climate change on flood and coastal erosion risk. The investment of £2.65 billion into maintaining flood defences will help to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Under the previous Government, fly-tipping skyrocketed by 20%, leaving communities buried under an avalanche of rubbish. This Government are clearing up their mess, tackling the waste cowboys, closing the loopholes that allowed waste crime to flourish and cleaning up Britain. We will hunt down the fly-tippers with the latest technology, including drones and mobile CCTV, introduce new powers to seize and crush vehicles and increase prison sentences to up to five years for those transporting waste illegally.
Gregor Poynton
I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the West Lothian Litter Pickers, who are doing so much in my Livingston constituency to reduce the causes and symptoms of fly-tipping and littering, but it is scandalous that their work is needed. In Scotland, the latest figures show that only 1.2% of fly-tipping incidents have resulted in a fixed penalty notice and a mere 0.2% in a criminal prosecution. Does the Minister agree that, in sharp contrast with this UK Labour Government, who are taking a zero-tolerance approach and cracking down on fly-tipping, the Scottish Government’s record in this area is, quite frankly, rubbish?
Mary Creagh
I am sorry to hear that the SNP Government are not taking firm action, but perhaps where we have led the way, they would like to follow. I congratulate West Lothian Litter Pickers and pay tribute to Keep Britain Tidy, whose Great British spring clean, backed by the Daily Mirror, helped to tackle the 30 million tonnes of litter discarded on our streets each year, including 5 billion cigarette butts. Each cigarette butt can poison 1,000 litres of water. If we are serious about marine litter, we have to pick up our butts—and perhaps a little less talk and a little more action from the SNP.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I recently met with the Philpot family at the diverse and successful Barleylands farm in my constituency. Fly-tipping is a major concern for them and other local farmers, and they are working together to address it. They told me that, although fly-tipping is a major issue, it is not the existential threat that the tax increases this Labour Government are imposing on them are, with the national insurance tax increases and the massive rises in agricultural property relief and business property relief. They are right, are they not?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on weaving in a farms question on fly-tipping, but he is right—[Interruption.] Calm down.
Mr Speaker
Please, let’s calm down; this is a very important day. I am the decision maker on whether questions are right or wrong anyhow.
Mary Creagh
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We know that fly-tipping is a very big problem for farmers. I have visited fly-tipping sites near Watford in the last month and spoken to farmers about what they have to do to clear them up. It is clear that many Tory-run county councils are not playing their part in cleaning up fly-tipping and making the prosecutions that act as a disincentive to these criminal businesses and their business models.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Annual variations in farm input costs are driven by global markets. UK fertiliser farm gate prices are tied to movements in the international markets, and UK fertiliser suppliers compete for market share, providing the best price they can for farmers.
Graeme Downie
Farms in my constituency and across Fife produce some of the highest quality grain in the world. However, many farmers are struggling to make a profit as imported grain is often produced at a different standard. That can undermine or undercut cereals grown in Scotland, which are produced to the highest standards. Scottish grain is a vital ingredient for high-quality Scotch whisky, and with the news this week of the trade deal with India, welcomed by the Scotch Whisky Association, demand for Scottish grain is likely to rise. What steps will the Minister take to increase standards for imported grain, and ensure profit for farmers in my constituency and a consistent supply for sectors including Scotch whisky?
Daniel Zeichner
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will always maintain our high standards. All imported products will continue to be subject to clear controls, including limits for pesticide residues. I join him in sharing the really good news on that trade deal: it is good news for Scotch whisky and good news for British producers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My farmers in Northern Ireland and Strangford, and farmers across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, produce some of the best products. Prices are rising, sometimes due to things we cannot prevent, but farmers need better prices from the supermarkets. What is being done to ensure that our farmers, who produce a quality product, get the right prices for the effort they put in?
Daniel Zeichner
I am always grateful for a contribution from the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, a series of fair dealing clauses were included in the Agriculture Act 2020; they are being brought into effect at the moment and we expect to see more progress made in that regard. He is absolutely right to raise the point that farmers should get a fair deal.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Fly-tipping scandalously shot up by over a third under the previous Conservative Government, and the public are rightly furious when they see their communities buried under an avalanche of rubbish. This Government will clean up our streets, towns and villages. We will support councils to identify, seize and crush waste criminals’ vehicles by closing the Tory fly-tipping loopholes that prevented tough action. We will increase sentences for dumping waste to up to five years, and we will make fly-tippers pay the cost of impounding their vehicles before they are crushed, because we believe that the polluter, not the public, should pay. This Government will call time on fly-tippers so we can restore people’s pride in their neighbourhoods.
Ben Maguire
The River Camel multi-use trail in my North Cornwall constituency attracts more than half a million users every year and brings over £3 million to the local economy. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss a river trail extension to Camelford as part of this Government’s manifesto pledge to create nine new river walks and connect thousands more people to nature?
Steve Reed
I am delighted to hear that people are enjoying the River Camel trail. It is wonderful to visit and we want to extend more of these walks across the country so that more people can enjoy them. I will of course make sure that the hon. Gentleman can meet the appropriate Minister to raise his concerns.
Mr Speaker
I call Diane Abbott—not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
As we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, I remember the great role that my constituency played, including 617 Squadron, flying from RAF Woodhall Spa; we must also remember and thank those women and men who formed the Land Army in order to feed our troops and our nation. Many of their descendants still farm the same fields that their ancestors farmed in the war, but that tradition is under threat from this Government.
Before Christmas, I warned the Secretary of State that a farmer had taken their life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. The Secretary of State responded with anger, and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health. This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their life because of the family farm tax. That is the Secretary of State’s legacy, but he can change it, because this change is not yet law. Will he set out these tragedies to the Prime Minister and demand that Labour policy be changed, or offer, on a point of principle, his resignation?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important matter, but I am bothered that nobody else is going to get in, so I hope the shadow Secretary of State’s second question is shorter.
Steve Reed
I express my regret that the shadow Secretary of State would seek to politicise personal tragedy in this way. It is immensely regrettable that she would seek to do that; none of us can know for sure what happens in matters of personal tragedy. It is beneath her to try to weaponise the issue in the way that she has done. This Government take issues of mental health very seriously indeed. We are setting up mental health hubs in every community, so that we can support farmers and others who are suffering from mental ill health. I gently remind her that this was a problem that escalated during her time in office as Secretary of State for Health, when she failed to address the problems that people are facing.
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I am simply confronting the Secretary of State with the realities of his policy. Another policy is distressing farmers and other people: the removal of our ancient property rights, first enshrined in the Magna Carta. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill gives a quango, Natural England, powers to seize private land, not for house building but for undefined environmental reasons. It can seize not just agricultural land, but our constituents’ gardens, and it does not even have to pay market value for that land. Will the Secretary of State now commit to an amendment to the Bill to save our constituents’ gardens, or is this Labour’s garden grab?
Steve Reed
As is so often the case from that particular source, that is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Nothing of the kind is happening. Rather than trying to politicise and weaponise the matter, the right hon. Lady would help herself and people who are genuinely concerned about those issues by sticking to the facts.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and note that even in those times of distress, woe and horror, some good relationships were formed. The seasonal worker visa scheme for 43,000 seasonal worker visas was announced a few months ago. That number includes 2,000 extra for poultry. At the National Farmers Union conference, the Secretary of State announced a five-year extension to 2030. That will provide certainty, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to analyse and assess very carefully what the industry needs to ensure it has the resources required.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On behalf of all Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I add my tribute to those who fought and died to secure our freedom. I also pay tribute to those in rural communities, like ours in Westmorland, who fed this country and welcomed evacuee children from the cities, and to our community in Windermere, who welcomed the children who had survived the Nazi death camps after the war. We remember them all with deep gratitude.
Has the Prime Minister consulted the Secretary of State on the potential impact on British farmers of the US-UK trade deal? It is a matter of fact that US animal welfare standards are worse than ours, which means that import costs are lower, so allowing equal access is not free trade—it is unfair trade. It is throwing our farmers under the bus, just as the Conservatives did through their deal with Australia and New Zealand. Will the Secretary of State support Liberal Democrat calls for the deal to be signed only if it supports farmers, and after a vote in this House?
Steve Reed
There have been no announcements yet, and I cannot pre-empt them, but we have been crystal clear that we have red lines. We will not allow British farmers to be undercut on environmental or welfare standards in the way that the Conservatives did when they agreed a trade deal with Australia; it undercut British farmers and caused them immense damage. We will never go the way of the Tories; we will stand four-square behind our farmers, and I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats feel the same.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a similar theme, I congratulate the Government on securing a good deal for our farmers in the India trade deal, which was welcomed by the president of the NFU, who said it showed that this Government have “clearly listened”, in marked contrast to the previous Government. What assurance will the Secretary of State give me that our farmers will still be included in negotiations on the US trade deal?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the trade deal with India; it is a £4.8 billion boost to the UK economy, and very good news for our whisky and gin producers—and for the producers of salmon, lamb and chocolate, which are all now tariff-free exports to India. This Government will always negotiate in the national interest, and that is exactly the approach we will take with the US trade negotiations.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
Today we mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day. It has been 80 years since the allied victory in Europe that brought an end to the second world war. I pay tribute to the extraordinary courage, sacrifice and determination of our veterans and all who made that victory possible. Their legacy lives on in the freedoms that we cherish and enjoy to this very day.
Let me be absolutely clear: victims are waiting far too long to see justice. That is completely unacceptable. It has hit confidence in our criminal justice system, and this Government simply will not stand for it. That is why we are committed to working with the Crown Prosecution Service and partners across the criminal justice system to slash those backlogs and get cases through the courts more quickly. A review is ongoing of how we can reduce the backlog, and I am confident that what emerges from that review will mean that we can get delays down and set about the kind of reform that will deliver the change that the public deserve to see.
Patrick Hurley
On the topic of backlogs across the justice system, the Ministry of Justice’s successful campaign to recruit more magistrates is stretching the capacity of local training committees to provide sufficient mentors and appraisers to support new appointees. What more can the Government do to fill the gap in training capacity to better serve the interests of justice?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role that magistrates play in our criminal justice system. As we seek to reduce the intolerable court backlog that we inherited from the previous Government, I have absolutely no doubt that magistrates will continue to have a crucial role. It is essential that any new magistrates receive the right level of training, and I am happy to raise the matter that my hon. Friend has spoken about with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution are critical in reducing backlogs in the courts. I urge Ministers, in addition to holding the review, to look very carefully at the opportunities to use mediation more, particularly mandatory mediation.
The Solicitor General
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. I know from my days in practice that mediation and ADR have a very important role to play. It is critical that we get this intolerable backlog in our Crown courts down, and this Government are taking substantial action to do that. We have increased the number of Crown court sitting days. As I referred to, the Lord Chancellor has asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review of our criminal courts, and we are also increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates courts.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Criminal Bar Association has reported that more than 1,300 cases were adjourned last year due to a lack of available prosecuting or defence barristers—a 20-fold increase since 2019. In the south-west, there are half the number of legal aid providers that we have in London, and my inbox reflects that, with many constituents unable to access legal advice or representation, particularly in housing cases involving rogue landlords and unscrupulous management companies. Meanwhile, Citizens Advice has closed its branches across Cornwall. What assessment has the Solicitor General made of how these regional disparities in legal aid provision are driving Crown court backlogs, especially in rural areas such as my constituency of North Cornwall?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue. It is crucial that justice be accessible for everyone in this country; indeed, access to justice is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law. That is why we have undertaken a comprehensive review of civil legal aid, and in December, we announced a £92 million boost for criminal legal aid solicitors. Starting this year, we will also be introducing free independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape. There is much more to do—we are clear about that. Clearly, there are deficiencies in access to justice, but I can assure the hon. Member that this Government understand the scale of the problem and are committed to addressing it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Solicitor General
The Government’s safer streets mission is not just about town and city centres; it applies equally to our market squares and rural village greens. Rural crime can have devastating consequences for communities. This Government are committed to cracking down on crime and disorder in rural areas, with tougher powers for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour and prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. That is why the Crown Prosecution Service works closely with local police forces to tackle those offences.
David Chadwick
According to the latest figures in the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society’s rural crime report, in 2023, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% year on year to £52.8 million, with criminal gangs targeting farms up and down Wales—including, unfortunately, in my constituency. Prosecution rates for livestock theft in particular are very low—often below 1%, despite the huge financial and emotional toll that this type of crime takes on farmers. What actions are the Government taking to tackle those low prosecution rates?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue. We know that rural and farming communities face acute and bespoke threats from criminals, including highly organised crime groups that are exploiting our rural communities. He has referred to livestock theft, but those communities also face fly-tipping and machinery and fuel theft. We are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, and are also committed to further funding for the national rural and wildlife crime units. We have announced additional funding for those units, because we recognise just how critical it is to crack down on rural crime. I should also mention policing, because our neighbourhood policing guarantee covers the entirety of this country—not just urban areas, but rural areas too.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government are determined to crack down on the scourge of economic crime, and the Serious Fraud Office does crucial work to tackle complex fraud, bribery and corruption. Under its new director, the SFO has opened nine new overt investigations and charged 16 defendants. Just last week, I saw the SFO’s crucial work at first hand when I observed a dawn raid carried out in relation to a new multimillion-pound bribery investigation.
Johanna Baxter
The vast majority of UK businesses play by the rules, but fraud is estimated to cost UK taxpayers—including my constituents—between £55 billion and £80 billion per year. What is the Serious Fraud Office doing to encourage businesses to self-report wrongdoing?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the vast majority of businesses do play by the rules, and fraud is so damaging precisely because it undermines everyone who plays fairly. That is why this Government are so determined to tackle it. I welcome the SFO’s recently revised guidance, which aims to drive up the number of corporates that self-report wrongdoing. That is a positive development that will foster good corporate citizenship, and it is an important contributor to this Government’s economic growth mission.
Lloyd Hatton
I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. Since their introduction in 2015, deferred prosecution agreements have resulted in the SFO raising some £1.7 billion in fines, yet those DPAs have dried up—the last DPAs that the Serious Fraud Office signed were some four years ago, in 2021. I welcome the SFO’s new strategy to ramp up enforcement, including new guidance to make it simpler to report crimes, but I believe we can and must go further. Can the Solicitor General outline what steps the Government are taking to support the SFO in ensuring that whistleblowers are also incentivised to come forward?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The director of the SFO has expressed strong support for the financial incentivisation of whistleblowers, and the SFO’s five-year strategy commits to exploring options, working with partners in the UK and abroad. Reform would require careful assessment, and it is right that any suggestions that could enhance the SFO’s efficiency and our ability as a country to tackle serious fraud, bribery and corruption are properly considered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One thing that concerns me in Northern Ireland is criminal gangs and former paramilitary gangs being involved in all sorts of crime, now including economic crime. They see business as a way of creating more wealth for their criminal activities. What is being done to take on these criminal gangs, whose tentacles reach right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, indeed, further afield, which we also have to address? Criminal gangs have to be taken on and have to be taken out of operation and put in jail. Do the Al Capone on them—put them in jail for economic crime.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is absolutely right that fraud does not stop at national borders, so it is vital that enforcement activities do not stop at national borders either. That is why the SFO takes co-operation with international partners extremely seriously. In fact, most recently, the director launched a new international anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce with Swiss and French partner agencies to strengthen existing ties between these countries and to lead to greater joint working on cases, as well as the sharing of insight and expertise. I would argue that we need more of those agreements and greater international co-operation to tackle the issue that he raises.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I wish to add my own tribute to those who bravely fought for our freedom.
Marks & Spencer is a much-loved cornerstone of the Great British high street and an important part of our economy. Many Members right across this House will be shocked to learn that over half a billion pounds has been wiped off its value following a serious ransomware attack. Harrods and the Co-op have also been attacked, and yesterday the Legal Aid Agency was attacked too. Can the Solicitor General confirm what role the Attorney General’s Office has played in ensuring that the criminal justice system treats such attacks robustly? How is it overseeing the response of the Crown Prosecution Service and other relevant agencies to economic and cyber-crime more broadly?
The Solicitor General
The shadow Solicitor General raises an important issue. We know that this type of crime is on the increase, and it is clearly vital that enforcement agencies and the CPS give it due prominence. She refers to some extremely well-known and much-loved brands. It is important that all those agencies play a role in enhancing awareness of this type of crime, such that it can be properly prevented. The SFO in particular plays a role in raising awareness of online crime so as to protect the public as well as businesses.
Helen Grant
I thank the Solicitor General for her response. Can she confirm what assessment she has made of the economic and legal risks posed by ransomware attacks on large UK businesses? Can she give an indication of what steps the Government are taking to ensure that companies of national economic importance are better protected and supported in the aftermath of such incidents?
The Solicitor General
As I said, the shadow Solicitor General raises extremely important issues—issues that the Government are alive to. This is a cross-Government issue, frankly, and it is important to all those partner enforcement agencies. I can assure her that work is ongoing and is being done to protect businesses and the public from these kind of attacks.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
I am aware of the tragic case to which my hon. Friend refers, and which he has been campaigning on. I would like to take the opportunity to extend my deepest condolences to the family of Harry Parker. Every single death on our roads is completely unacceptable, and increasing the safety of our roads is a priority for this Government.
Will Stone
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Harry Parker was 14 years old when he got run over. The person who took his life did not have a driving licence or any insurance, and did not stop, yet last November the charges were dropped. This is partially down to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Will my hon. Friend review section 3ZB and meet me to see how we can close the loopholes?
The Solicitor General
It is fundamental that our roads are safe for all who use them, and that those who break our road safety laws are brought to justice. That is why we are committed to delivering a new road safety strategy, and the next steps will be set out in due course. The Government keep motoring offences under review, including those for driving unlicensed and uninsured. As my hon. Friend knows, the CPS prosecutes matters independently of Government, but I would nevertheless be more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Solicitor General
Just last month, National Stalking Awareness Week served as a sobering reminder of just how crucial it is that perpetrators of stalking are dealt with robustly. This Government are absolutely determined to protect victims of stalking, which is why we are taking action by extending stalking protection orders so that courts can impose them on conviction and acquittal, giving victims protection when they need it most. We are also conducting a review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and we are empowering the police to release the identities of online stalkers.
Olly Glover
I thank the Solicitor General for her answer, which largely anticipated my subsequent question. I recently met a constituent at a surgery appointment who, alongside her family, has experienced significant psychological trauma as a result of stalking, and who has concerns about the police response. In the light of what the Solicitor General has said about strengthening stalking protection orders, what more can be done to ensure that the police are briefed and supported to implement them, so that families can live their lives in safety?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I am glad that I largely managed to pre-empt his question with my first answer. Stalking cases are on the rise. We are seeing more referrals to the police and, indeed, more convictions. This Government are taking strong action on stalking, because we recognise the scale of the issue. We are introducing statutory guidance to empower the police to release the identities of online stalkers, which we recognise is extremely important. I mentioned that we are extending stalking protection orders, which is clearly important too, and the review of stalking legislation is ongoing to make sure that that body of law is fit for purpose. My colleagues will update the House on that in due course.
Mr Speaker
That completes questions. May I just say to the Serjeant at Arms that I am very concerned that Members who had questions on the Order Paper have not been allowed into the House? Can we take this up with the police? They have no right to stop a Member entering this House. I take it very seriously.
Before we proceed to the business question, I should inform the House that the Government have indicated that there will be a statement this afternoon on US-UK trade. The timing of that statement has yet to be established, but it will appear on the annunciator once it has been confirmed.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 12 May includes:
Monday 12 May—Remaining stages of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Tuesday 13 May—Opposition day (7th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 14 May—Consideration of Lords message on the Great British Energy Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Thursday 15 May—General debate on solar farms, followed by general debate on long-term funding of youth services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 May—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 May will include:
Monday 19 May—Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill.
Wednesday 21 May—Opposition day (8th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 22 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 May and return on Monday 2 June.
Jesse Norman
This is of course the 80th anniversary of VE Day, when all Britain rejoiced at the defeat of fascism and the end of the war in Europe. I am sure I speak for the whole House in putting on record once again our profound thanks and our celebration of the immortal memory of that extraordinary generation who—through their courage, their selflessness and their sense of duty—made victory in Europe possible. Let us all pray that we can be worthy of their memory.
If I may turn back from the sublime sweep of history to the mundane business of our politics, the Government have made valiant efforts to crowd the airwaves on trade this week, but the unfortunate truth is that they have had another dire week in office. The financial facts of life have not changed: growth is stagnant, as a nation we have to raise defence spending rapidly and the Government have made themselves a prisoner of their fiscal rules. Before the Leader of the House starts in on the local election results, may I remind her that, for all the horrors of last week, the Opposition still ended up with three times as many council seats as the Government?
Let us look at those cost pressures a bit more closely. Just eight months after a 22.3% increase in pay for junior doctors—an increase described at the time by the British Medical Association as
“a good enough first step”,
the House will recall—the BMA has now announced it will ballot its members to strike for more pay.
Meanwhile, the somewhat unlikely pairing of Tony Blair and Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB trade union, have both denounced the Government’s decision to ban offshore licences in the North sea. Blair described it as an “irrational” policy “doomed to fail”, the backlash to which threatened to “derail the whole agenda”. He said it was caused by Ministers afraid of being cast as “climate deniers”. He is not talking about the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, of course; he is talking about all the Ministers and MPs on the Government Benches who know better, but are too frit to say so.
Gary Smith said that “climate fundamentalism”—that is the Secretary of State for Energy—would
“accelerate the decline of domestic oil and gas production and increase our dependency on gas imports”,
directly contrary to the Government’s supposed growth strategy. As he pointed out:
“Across society, bill-payers will question why they are subsidising a domestic clean power sprint that is offshoring UK jobs and value.”
Only today, we have had the news that Ørsted is mothballing its giant new offshore wind farm, as it has made it clear it is holding out for even greater subsidies, knowing that the Secretary of State has no choice, and has in effect said that he has no choice, if he wants to hit his targets. We all want a just and rapid energy transition, but does the Leader of the House not think that the words of Tony Blair and Gary Smith are simple common sense?
There is one other issue that I think we should highlight. The Leader of the House has received universal condemnation for dismissing concerns about grooming gangs as “dog-whistle politics”. In response, she put out a tweet that conspicuously did not contain an apology for what she had said. The Secretary of State for Health said that her remarks were “indefensible”, but the truth is that she has talked in the same way about grooming gangs from the Dispatch Box, when she accused people of jumping on bandwagons on 9 January this year in business questions.
I hope we can agree now that this is an extremely serious national issue and that no one, whether or not they hold public office, should be deflecting or denying its seriousness. I hope that in her response now, the Leader of the House will put aside party politics, avoid criticising others and speak from the heart. So I ask her: has she now watched the Channel 4 documentary, and if so, how does she feel about it? Does she agree that the dismissal of these entirely valid concerns has been one of the factors behind what even today remains a huge continuing national scandal. Will she now back the call of many victims for a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs. Finally, would she like to take this opportunity to speak directly to the hundreds of vulnerable women involved, and say sorry?
Lucy Powell
Mr Speaker, further to your statement, talks on the US trade deal developments continue at pace. With your permission, the House will be updated later today. I will come on to VE Day shortly, but may I first address the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising what I said on an episode of “Any Questions” last week, so that I can be absolutely clear with the House today, and especially to the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and grooming gangs, that I am very sorry for those remarks, as I made clear over the weekend. I, and every member of this Government, want your truth to be heard, wherever that truth leads. Your truly appalling experiences need to be acted on, for those responsible to be accountable and face the full force of the law, and for justice to be served. I would never want to leave the impression that these very serious, profound and far-reaching issues, which I have campaigned on for many years, should be shied away from and not aired—far from it. No stone will be left unturned.
What the victims want, first and foremost, is for action to be taken and for the many, many recommendations from previous inquiries to be implemented in full, including mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, for which I have called for nearly a decade. Shockingly, those recommendations remained sitting on the shelf until we came into government last year. Baroness Louise Casey, who conducted the no-holds-barred inquiry into Rotherham, is carrying out an audit on the scale, nature and characteristics of grooming gangs. She will be reporting soon. It will include the questions on ethnicity. Every police force in England and Wales has been asked to look again at historic grooming gangs cases. They will be reopened, where appropriate, to get the perpetrators behind bars. I hope the House is left in no doubt about my commitment to these issues and my apology to those victims for any distress I have caused them.
I was surprised to hear the shadow Leader of the House try to claim some success in the local elections for his party. I am not quite sure that that is what those on the Conservative Benches are feeling.
Let me address the issue of our need to move to being a clean energy superpower. I am afraid that yet again at the Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman and his party are showing a serious misunderstanding of the economics and the reality of the transition to net zero. We face the worst cost of living crisis in generations, because his party left this country exposed to international fossil fuel markets as a direct result of their failure to invest in clean energy. It is only by investing in clean energy that we will bring down bills in future. He might want to remind himself of what his former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said about this issue:
“the sceptics say that the green transition will cripple business, we say they could not be more wrong.”
This is a global race for the jobs of the future, to get bills down, and that is exactly what we are doing.
The right hon. Gentleman should know better than anybody that new oil and gas in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, because oil and gas is traded on the international markets and therefore we are locked in. The only way to decouple that is by investing in cheaper renewable energies, as the Government are doing. It was a previous Conservative Energy Minister who said in 2022:
“more UK production wouldn’t reduce the global price of gas.”
The right hon. Gentleman might want to remind himself of that.
We have all come together in the Chamber today to honour our veterans and all those who played their part in securing peace and victory in Europe and ending the second world war. Today, we mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, and will shortly recreate the procession of Members from the Chamber to a service of thanksgiving on 8 May 1945. In addressing the House on that day, Winston Churchill conveyed his
“deep gratitude to this House of Commons, which has proved itself the strongest foundation for waging war that has ever been seen in the whole of our long history. We have all of us made our mistakes, but the strength of the Parliamentary institution has been shown to enable it at the same moment to preserve all the title deeds of democracy while waging war in the most stern and protracted form.”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 0, c. 1869.]
As we represent our parliamentary democracy today, these words ring as true now as they did then. We will never forget the sacrifice, bravery and spirit and the millions of lives lost in defeating fascism.
Today, we also remember Her late Majesty the Queen, whose youthful, joyous celebration symbolised VE Day, and whose long reign shaped the peace and prosperity that followed it. Today and every day, we remember the immense contribution of the second world war generation and thank them for their service.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Women’s Aid reports that 82% of domestic abuse cases go unreported. Reporting and prosecution rates are disproportionately lower for black and minoritised survivors. Does the Leader of the House agree that consistent collection and publication of disaggregated data is key to assessing whether Government actions are working for all women?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As she knows, violence against women and girls is a national emergency and tackling it is one of the key missions of this Government. I agree that this data needs to be brought to light and disaggregated.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day by commemorating the sacrifices made not just by those who fought and fell in the second world war, but by those who continue to serve our country in our armed forces and all who support them, including their families, who often spend long periods of time away from their loved ones.
Last week’s local elections were the first time in history that the Liberal Democrats beat both the Conservatives and Labour at the same local elections. We are proud of the trust that voters placed in us, meaning that our party now controls more councils than the Conservatives.
Last week also saw some of the most widely divided results our country has ever seen. The winner of the West of England mayoral election, from the Labour party, took the seat with just 25% of the vote; put another way, three out of every four voters put their cross in somebody else’s box. However, the lowest winning vote share was in Cornwall, where the winner in one race—a Liberal Democrat—was elected with just 18.9% of the vote. Just seven and a half percentage points separated the top six candidates.
It is clear that we are witnessing the end of the traditional two-party system—[Interruption.] Like it or not, our antiquated first-past-the-post system simply is not designed to cope with a multi-party system—at least, not for those who believe in fairness, as I hope the Government do. Will the Leader of the House now grant time for the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to be debated in full, and will she encourage all her colleagues across Government to finally support the proposed move to proportional representation?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating all those who were successful in last week’s elections and in paying tribute to the many councillors and candidates who were not successful for their campaigning.
The hon. Lady raises some important issues about turnout and engagement in elections. We both have a political challenge to ensure that people are engaged in the debate and feel energised and enthused to take part in elections, but we also need to look at how elections are conducted. This Government are committed to bringing forward an elections Bill in due course, which will address some of these issues.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I am delighted that the United Kingdom stands on the brink of a trade agreement with the United States. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is vindication of the firm, but fair, calm and measured approach of the Prime Minister, in stark contrast to the shrill voices from those on the Conservative Benches that would have landed us in a trade war weeks ago?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. May I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his determined, consistent and stoic leadership in this area, which is bringing dividends to this country, and will ensure future prosperity and growth through the trade deals that he has agreed to?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Let me make some additions to the business that the Leader of the House has announced. Next Thursday, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Work and Pensions Committee. On Thursday 22 May there will be a debate on access to NHS dentistry, followed by a debate on dementia care. In Westminster Hall, on 13 May, there will be a debate on the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities. On Thursday 15 May there will be a debate on funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund, followed by a debate on World Asthma Day. On 20 May there will be a debate on pensions for people living overseas, and on Thursday 22 May there will be a three-hour debate on the EU-UK summit.
Yesterday, the renowned charity, StandWithUs, published a report on antisemitism on university campuses. Dozens of students have given their testimony to the failure of universities to protect them and their rights. They have come out with a series of recommendations, including sanctions against universities that failed to protect students and an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of why universities are not protecting students. Can we have a statement next week from the relevant Minister on what is going to happen to make sure that Jewish students are protected on our campuses?
Lucy Powell
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing the forthcoming Backbench Business. I thank him, too, for all his work. He raises an important report that is out this week. This Government stand firm on antisemitism. We need to root it out on all our university campuses, and wherever it exists in our society. I will ensure that he gets a full update from the relevant Minister.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As the chair of the medicinal cannabis under prescription all-party parliamentary group, I have worked closely with Hannah Deacon, the mother of Alfie Dingley, over the past eight years. This woman has changed the law, but, sadly, she lost her fight with cancer the day before yesterday. Will the Leader of the House pay tribute to her and send condolences to her family, as the work that she has done has changed the lives of so many young children living with epilepsy? Will she join me and Hannah’s friends who are here in the House today? This woman was incredible, and I just wanted everybody across this House who has had the opportunity to work with her to know that, and to stand in solidarity and send their love to the family—to Drew, Alfie and little Anni.
Lucy Powell
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending all the love and best wishes to my hon. Friend and to her dear friend, Hannah Deakin, and her friends who are here in the Public Gallery today. I remember my hon. Friend mentioning and raising this campaign many times on her behalf. I can truly say that Hannah has changed the lives of many and she has changed policy. Her life will be long remembered by many, many others and we all pay great tribute to her today.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Many members of the grooming and rape gangs that systematically abused white working class girls have never faced justice, and neither have the councillors, officials and police officers suspected of collusion and cover-up. Can we have a debate on the need for a national inquiry into these disgusting crimes? Will the Leader of the House tell us please who exactly it is she believes is using these horrors as a “dog whistle”?
Lucy Powell
Everybody up and down this country is horrified about the crimes that have been committed over many, many years by despicable grooming gangs. That is why we are, first and foremost, implementing the very many recommendations from the recent inquiries, most of which sat on the shelf until the general election last year. Those recommendations include mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is something I have campaigned on for many years, as have the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the victims of these terrible atrocities get truth, justice and accountability wherever that is needed.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Yesterday I spoke with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the progress of the treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—sometimes known as the global ocean treaty. I was assured that, as far as the Department is concerned, the matter had been dealt with and was all done, and I was assured that was also the case with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but when I spoke to colleagues from the Cabinet Office, they had not heard of it. The Leader of the House will know that the United Nations ocean conference will take place next month, and it is really important that we get ratification of that treaty for the conference. The world is looking at us, and if we want to take leadership on this issue, we need to act.
Lucy Powell
I can assure my hon. Friend that, given my responsibility for the business of this House, I am well aware of the need to ratify the treaty and all that that involves. We are committed to doing so, and I can assure him that we will do so in good time.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Last week the Permanent Court of Arbitration allowed the UK to uphold the ban on sand eel fishing around the UK, including around the Isle of May in my constituency. The ban is doing so much to support the native puffins there. It also affirmed that policies banning sand eel fishing are based on scientific evidence. However, the impact of the remainder of the judgment is unclear, with different rulings in relation to English seas that muddy the waters considerably. Will the Government bring forward a debate in Government time so that the House can fully hear and consider their response to this ruling?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the impact that the ruling is having on fishing in the hon. Lady’s area. I am not aware that the House is to be told of any developments, but the Government will ensure that she gets a full ministerial reply, and if the House needs to be updated, it will be.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency has the most leaseholders in the country. I commend this Government’s work to give leaseholders the accountability that they should have. Will the Leader of the House support me in inviting the Minister responsible to come and talk to the leasehold action group here in the Cities of London and Westminster about mandatory qualifications and securing accountability against their landlords?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The feudal leasehold system is a plague for many homeowners in our country. Many of the issues she has in her constituency I share in my own, and I know that the Minister responsible for leasehold, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), would be delighted to meet her constituents, as he recently did with hundreds of mine, to discuss this Government’s plans for leasehold reform.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
In March the complaints commissioner concluded that the Financial Conduct Authority failed to identify risks relating to the owner of the funeral firm Safe Hands Plans, despite receiving information about breaches and other serious risks connected to the company. As a result, Safe Hands went into administration in 2022, with those who had invested in funeral plans losing thousands of pounds. Can we therefore have a statement on the role of the Financial Conduct Authority in the collapse of Safe Hands and the need for redress for constituents who have been impacted by this situation?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising Safe Hands, which is an issue for many MPs across the House. I will ensure that he gets a full update from a Minister and that time is found to discuss some of the issues raised by this case.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
On Saturday I will be joining hundreds of people from across Beckenham and Penge at Beckenham Rugby Club for a rugby tournament and beer festival. It is a fantastic example of how our small businesses support and enhance our local communities, and I would like to thank Matt and his team at the Three Hounds for all their work on this event. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing everyone attending a great weekend?
Lucy Powell
I do love the sporting questions from my hon. Friend, for which he gets quite a lot of cut-through. I join him in supporting all those from Beckenham Rugby Club on what sounds like a great day out.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I welcome the UK-US trade deal and congratulate the Prime Minister on it? It is very much in the national interest, although the devil is in the detail. May we have a debate on that trade deal and the concerns of British farmers about chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and antibiotics in pig farming? Will the Leader of the House assure the House, Shropshire farmers and British farmers that British agriculture is safe with this trade deal?
Lucy Powell
We can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. There will be a statement to the House later today—these issues are still unfolding—but he is right to praise the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade for the amazing work that they have done to get us to this point. He will be aware that the issues of food standards and agriculture have been red lines for the Government in those trade talks, and he will get the details later today.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
We are currently facing a chronic staffing crisis in adult social care, which has led to increasing recruitment from overseas. Migrant workers now make up 16% of the workforce in England. While many arrive in good faith, they are too often met with extortionate recruitment fees, wage reductions, exploitative working conditions and the ever-present threat of deportation should they raise concerns or lose their jobs. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have witnessed a shocking litany of failures, negligence and exploitation of migrant workers at the hands of a private company in my constituency of Stockport. Many workers have not been paid or have found themselves in overcrowded, substandard housing, and at times without any work at all. As such, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the exploitation of migrant workers?
Lucy Powell
We totally condemn the exploitation of international care workers by rogue employers in the sector. We are taking robust action, including by revoking sponsor licences where that is deemed to be the case. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets an update on his case.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I was concerned to read reports in the newspaper earlier this week that train stations will not be allowed to have step-free access if they have fewer than 1,000 passengers a day or are within 30 miles of a station with step-free access. People in rural areas will not be able to use the train if there is no alternative public transport and they cannot access a car. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time so that we can talk about the importance of people in rural areas being able to access public transport and, in particular, stations such as Whitchurch in my constituency, where there is no step-free access to the southbound platform?
Lucy Powell
The issue of step-free access at stations is always raised with me at business questions. I assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to the Access for All programme, and the Rail Minister is reviewing what we can do to support it better. I will ensure that the House is updated on that.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have today announced best value updates for five local authorities, including Warrington borough council. The findings for Warrington have highlighted a number of serious conclusions that must be addressed. However, we should also recognise the pressures that local authorities faced under the last Government, with significant reductions to funding and increased demands on their services. Warrington council must now go further and faster to improve, restore trust and deliver best value for my constituents. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate the important topic of local government finance and the actions that the Government are taking to support local authorities?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising issues in Warrington. She is right that the Government have given record levels of funding to local government—£69 billion this year, I think—and are committed to restoring services and local government in places such as her constituency.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Baby Jack was just 16 months old when, on Boxing day 2022, he passed away from sudden unexplained death in childhood, which was incredibly heartbreaking. It is something that unfortunately we just do not know enough about. I want to commend Jack’s parents, Cheryl and Darren from Silsden, whom I have met. They have been fund- raising on this issue ever since that fateful day. This weekend they will be taking on their biggest challenge: cycling from Leeds to Liverpool along the canal. I hope that hon. Members across the House, including the Leader of the House, will join me in sending our thoughts to Cheryl and Darren and their eldest son Louis on their fortitude and determination, and wish them the very best of luck in their cycling challenge this weekend.
Lucy Powell
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending the very best to Cheryl and Darren with their fundraising activities this weekend. I am really sorry to hear about the sudden death of Baby Jack—what an awful thing for any parent to go through. That they have been able to turn that into fundraising and campaigning is truly commendable. I look forward to them hopefully passing through Manchester on their way from Leeds to Liverpool.
Victory in Europe Day: Commemoration
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, I ask that you now suspend the sitting so that we may attend at Westminster Abbey to give thanks and to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day—the greatest victory in the history of our great nation.
Mr Speaker
We will now follow in the footsteps of our predecessors 80 years ago. On 8 May 1945, hon. Members formed a procession out of the House of Lords, where they had secretly relocated because the House of Commons Chamber had been destroyed during the blitz. Today, we shall again follow the Mace, but this time from our own Chamber, through the bomb-scarred Churchill Arch, which stands as a permanent reminder of the fortitude of those who stood firm through the war.
Environmental Audit Committee
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee Statement on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee. Mr Toby Perkins will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement; these should be brief questions, not speeches. Questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Government Minister, and Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to present the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the role of natural capital in the green economy. This report was initiated by my predecessor as Chair, the right honourable Philip Dunne, the former Member of Parliament for Ludlow. I wish to pay great tribute to him for his excellent contribution as Chair. Mr Dunne enjoyed what I suspect is an unusual distinction of having both asked questions and answered them in the witness sessions that led to this report. Having originally initiated the report in January 2024 and then seen Parliament dissolve before the report could be published, he was kind enough to return as a witness in December 2024 to brief the successor Committee on the evidence that his Committee had heard and to provide his own insights.
I wish to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude and, I know, the gratitude of members of the Committee past and present to our former Clerk, Martyn Atkins, who recently left the service of the Committee for a period of absence after many years of service to the House. Martyn has played a huge role in the work of this Select Committee and many others and will be very much missed, as will Chloe Jago, who recently stood down as press officer on the Committee after five years of excellent service to take up a role closer to home.
I thank all those who have contributed to this report, the many people and organisations who submitted written and oral evidence, the Committee staff—particularly Alex Farnsworth, who has worked tirelessly to complete the report—and the members of the current and predecessor Environmental Audit Committee.
Let me turn to the report itself. We were delighted to see that recommendation No. 1—that the Government should produce an impact assessment of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—was satisfied within a day of our report being published. At this pace, we really could get somewhere. However, we still need to learn more about how the nature restoration fund will interact with biodiversity net gain. I am glad to see that the Minister is here to expand on that in his response.
The Dasgupta review made clear the value of nature. Nature and the services that it provides underpin both our economy and our way of life. In 2022, the Office for National Statistics found that the UK ecosystem’s services were equivalent to 3.5% of GDP, or £1.8 trillion. The UK has experienced significant biodiversity loss in recent decades, with the “State of Nature” report 2023 showing an average of 19% species abundance decline across more than 750 species between 1970 and 2021.
The Committee agrees with the Government that economic and financial decision making should support the delivery of a nature-positive future and we would like to hear a repetition of that commitment and, indeed, to see it actualised in the forthcoming spending review.
The Committee agrees with the assertion of this Government and the previous Government that, in a time of spending restraint, taxpayer money alone is no longer sufficient to deliver the necessary level of environmental restoration, so private finance must play its part. We were pleased to hear from the Minister for Nature that work is ongoing to better quantify the current size of the annual investment in natural capital. The Committee therefore recommends that, within 12 months, the Government provide a report to Parliament on current and projected levels of private investment into nature recovery in England, so that we can see both the progress that has been made and the size of the funding gap.
For the Government to deliver on protecting 30% of land by 2030, they must provide landowners with the confidence to invest in nature restoration. The long-promised land use framework will help, and will give assurance that there is a strategic approach to balance the competing needs for our land in regard to food production, nature restoration, renewable energy, residential and commercial development, and other areas. It will, however, require a natural capital approach to be embedded throughout Government.
The Committee heard concerns that the changes to the agricultural property relief regime had added to uncertainty, although the Government’s decision to give nature investments equal treatment under inheritance tax at least answers the charge that the Government were prioritising nature recovery ahead of food production.
Voluntary drivers of market demand alone will not deliver the demand that the Government need. Compliance mechanisms and the expectation of future compliance requirements will drive market demand, so the Government should look at bringing in increased compliance requirements, such as by expanding biodiversity net gain requirements or mandating corporate disclosure of nature-damaging activities.
The Committee seeks assurances that the proposed new nature restoration fund is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, Government investment in nature recovery. Without clear support for biodiversity net gain, Ministers risk causing uncertainty in nature markets, which could undermine investment in restoring nature. It will be good to hear a full-throated defence of BNG from the Minister in his response to the report—a defence that we heard from him, and indeed from myself, when in opposition.
Although the Committee supports an approach that allows nature recovery initiatives to be pooled, the Government must ensure that we do not end up with nature recovery miles away while there is a further eradication of nature within urban settings. One of the strengths of BNG is that the communities that suffered the nature blight also benefited from the recovery of nature locally. It will be good to get a commitment from the Minister about that principle remaining in place under the nature restoration fund proposals. Nature can grow hand in hand with our economy, and money from growth should go back into helping nature thrive.
The report provides the Government with a road map to restoring nature by capitalising on our huge national strength as a global financial leader. It cautions the Government not to undermine the progress already made and offers our support for the measures that help nature’s recovery come hand in hand with the economic growth that the Government rightly demand.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in support of the Committee’s report, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on the way in which he has led the Committee and on how he took up the remnant of this report from the last Parliament as the first report for our Committee in the new Parliament. He is right to recognise that natural capital is the foundation of our economy. With the spending review next month, does he agree that the Government should set out precisely how they have taken a natural capital approach to the evaluation of spending decisions? Does he agree that the new national wealth fund should be empowered to invest in the natural capital project, as highlighted in our report?
Mr Perkins
To return a compliment, my hon. Friend is the only person who was there at the start of the evidence and at the end, and we are very grateful for the continuity he provides. He is right that, as the Committee’s report lays out, we need to see a natural capital approach embedded right through Government. The forthcoming spending review is a great opportunity to see that, and I really hope that we do. He makes an important point about the national wealth fund; it provides a huge opportunity and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that both at this juncture and in his response to the report, which we will get from the Government in due course.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I commend the hon. Member for the quality of the Committee’s first report of this Parliament. The National Trust has warned that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a “licence to kill nature” and the Office for Environmental Protection has advised the Government that it is a “regression” in environmental law. Does he share my concern that a nature restoration fund could create risks to the UK economy by undermining our natural capital, and does he agree that without substantial private investment in nature, Government pledges to protect 30% of land by 2030, halt the decline of species and improve people’s access to green spaces could be at risk?
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I will start at the end of his question. He is absolutely right, and we agree with the Government that we need to be able to attract more private investment if the 30 by 30 aspiration is to be realised. It was notable that when the Government came to the Committee, they made it clear that they did not yet know—as their predecessor Government did not know—exactly how much was being raised by the private sector. The starting point of assessing whether the Government are on track to meet their targets is knowing how well they are doing right now. One of the recommendations in the report is therefore that the Government should get on with identifying the full scale of the current level of private sector investment. We will absolutely look to do that.
The jury is still out on whether the nature restoration fund will be a good or a bad thing. It offers real potential. A one-for-one approach on small schemes is sometimes expensive to provide and offers relatively limited value, so there is real value to a pooled approach that enables money to go in so that wider-scale improvements can be delivered. However, as I said, we need to be really sure that that does not mean that urban areas get the blight and rural areas get all the nature gain. We need to see it delivered close to where the initial plans are being delivered.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the publication of the report, which reminds us all once again that nature is the true foundation of all wealth in our country and around the globe. A wide range of environmental organisations and eminent academics —including Sir Partha Dasgupta, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge, whose review for the Treasury underpins the Committee’s entire report—have publicly written to warn that proposed plans in the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill are
“not a tool for ecological recovery”
but
“a licence to kill nature, with no evidence to suggest this would in any way help our economy.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that when leading economists, former Government advisers and leading conservationists with decades of collective experience have expressed such deep concerns about Government legislation, Ministers must listen and think again?
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that and for the excellent contribution he is making to the Select Committee. Professor Dasgupta is hugely respected, and his warnings should be taken very seriously indeed. I think that all Labour Members recognise the need for growth, but we demand that it comes hand in hand with nature recovery. We are one of the most nature-depleted nations on Earth and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, nature is the foundation stone on which all economic growth should be built. A nation that prioritises economic growth over our environment is one heading down a dangerous and foolish path. We have heard some really positive commitments from the Government, but we need to see them actualised. I completely agree with what he said.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and welcome this excellent report, with its focus on the value of natural capital. On such an important day as Sir David Attenborough’s 99th birthday, I am sure that Members across the House will wish to join me in expressing many happy returns to him for his important work in this space.
In coastal and rural constituencies like mine in South East Cornwall, the natural world and its biodiversity are both cherished and central to local jobs and to the economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that integrating natural capital into policy through tools like the nature restoration fund and the nature markets framework offers a vital opportunity for the Government and land managers to restore and increase the UK’s natural capital in ways that strengthen nature, boost local resilience and improve wellbeing for communities and for future generations?
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations. As I say, it is not my report; it is ours. I thank her for her contribution to the Committee. She is right about that commitment, and I think all of us on the Committee are driven to make sure that growth is hand in hand with nature, rather than at its expense. I agree with her entirely.
St George’s Day and English Affairs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered St George’s Day and English affairs.
I am grateful to my colleagues who co-sponsored this debate, and I wish all those right across our island home a belated but very happy St George’s day.
The cross-party support for this debate speaks to the power of St George and our collective pride in our Englishness. While the debate brought many colleagues together for all the right reasons, regardless of background or political persuasion, we as a House must be very clear that no political party, politician, region, faith, colour or creed has a monopoly on patriotism or pride in our national identity.
We gather here 80 years to the day since VE Day—the day of victory in Europe, victory against fascism and victory for decency, democracy and all that makes England and our United Kingdom great. As we celebrate 80 years since the end of the most terrible global war in modern history, I will, like many other colleagues who would otherwise be here, head back home to my constituency to celebrate with my neighbours, friends and constituents. I pay tribute to all those who fought so that we could live. I give thanks for their lives and legacies, and on behalf of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I rededicate myself to building a world that is more tolerant, more respectful and, yes, more peaceful. As Churchill said on this day 80 years ago,
“Long Live the Cause of Freedom! God Save the King!”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
From Newcastle-under-Lyme to North Northumberland, from Newquay to North Yorkshire and everywhere in between and beyond, St George’s day is a time to celebrate England and our Englishness and to show pride in our country—my country—and in our values, our flag and our history. My Englishness is central to my identity. My family roots are from all over the Commonwealth, and I have spoken in this House before about my grandfather who left the colonies, as they were, to help the war effort here in the United Kingdom. Yet it is in England where I was born and raised; it is England that shaped me and allowed someone of my mixed background to thrive, succeed and get on in life. That is the story of our England.
I have said in the House before that I am proud of my Englishness and my Britishness, and of the simple truth that in our beloved country—“this blessed plot”, as Shakespeare once called it—we can be anything we want to be with the right support, a work ethic, real opportunities and a good heart. There is so much that any, many and all of us could say about our nation home, but the time limits do not allow me that opportunity—although, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are well known for your indulgence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank him for doing so. It is important. I am one of those people— I suspect many of us are—who are proud to be English and proud to be British; I recognise them as different things that we should celebrate uniquely. Does he agree that those who seek to use Englishness to divide us, rather than bring us together, do a huge disservice to what being English is all about? Does he also agree that those of us who believe that we can have huge patriotism and pride in our Englishness, but who also recognise the values of inclusivity and generosity that our nation has shown over the years, need to do a much better job at defining exactly what it is as we go forward in difficult political times?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very important intervention. There is so much more that brings us together, and it is incumbent on all Members of this House to make that case, and to focus on bringing people together, rather than pushing us further apart.
England’s greatest asset is its people. That is nowhere clearer to me than in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the northern corner of the ancient county of Staffordshire that is my home and my constituency. Our people are hardworking, and many are God-fearing, decent folk who do not walk by on the other side, but who turn up to be counted. We see that in our national health service, in our schools, on our railways, in our veterans’ centres and in communities up and down England. We saw it during the pandemic and in the struggle alongside the people of Ukraine against Putin’s tyranny. We see it every single day.
One of England’s greatest features is our countryside, and my home of Newcastle-under-Lyme has plenty of it. Our farmers, who produce food of the greatest quality to the highest standards, deserve real and meaningful support. They feed us, work hard and lead the world when it comes to tending to and caring for our land, and I urge Ministers in this Government to keep that in mind. Where the previous Government failed, we must listen, learn and turn up to be counted.
The contribution of the English language to western literacy is simply immeasurable. England was home to the greatest writer of all time, William Shakespeare, and the works of Shakespeare alone continue to put England head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to influence on global literature. Alongside him, England can claim T. S. Eliot, the Brontë sisters, George Orwell, Jane Austen and many more.
English music is some of the most popular and influential music of all time. Still today, the Beatles— I see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey)—are considered by many to be the greatest band of all time, but that is a debate for another day. Alongside the Beatles, we have the Stones, David Bowie, Amy Winehouse, Queen, Adele, Elton John, Kate Bush, the excellent Joan Armatrading, Cilla Black, Oasis, the Clash, Pink Floyd and, of course, Robbie Williams—a man of and from north Staffordshire, whose mother lives in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
England has made some of the most enduring and significant contributions to music of any nation on our planet, and that is without mentioning the many other cultural endeavours mastered by the English. English film remains dominant globally. A new James Bond film is still one of the premier cinematic events, and no tariff will get in the way of that. Christopher Nolan, an Englishman, is arguably one of the most exciting and skilled film directors working today. We give thanks for actors like the late Dame Maggie Smith and the late and wonderful Glenda Jackson, formerly of this parish, and to those still going strong like Dame Joanna Lumley and Dame Judi Dench, who I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday with last year—[Interruption.] A story for another day, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As the birthplace of Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the iconic Spitfire plane; home to a university; birthplace of a Prime Minister—albeit that he moved to Australia to serve in that high office—and the home of the founder of the modern circus, Philip Astley; the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme has left its mark on English history and culture. If that is not enough, we also have the popular Stoke City clown icon Nello Baldwin—a constituent of mine. Speaking of Stoke City, I could not make this speech without mentioning England as the home of the beautiful game. With the local football landscape back home in mind, I of course also pay tribute to Port Vale.
Today it is important to call for action to ensure that the truths of England’s story and potential are preserved. We must work to ensure that people across England, and indeed all across the United Kingdom, continue to feel pride in our flag and our communities, and feel hope for the future and respect for our past. Any talk about love for flag and country must be matched by an investment in the people who make them what they are —investment in our national health service, our education and employment support services, our arts and culture, and our villages, towns and cities.
I do not want my speech to focus solely on the past, when there are so many exciting things to say about England’s future, but it would be remiss of me not to touch on some parts of our history that fill me with a particular sense of reverence. Our democracy is one of the oldest in the world. An English Parliament has existed in some form since the 13th century, and monumental events, such as the signing of the Magna Carta, have solidified England’s position in history as a forebearer of individual rights and freedom of political expression. Those rights were fought for and hard won across centuries by brave women and men who had the vision to see a better country and a better world for all of us.
There are many things I could say about England’s relationship to the wider world, but one of the enduring strengths of our country that I always come back to is the courage, tenacity and character of ordinary English people right across history. England is home to people from all over the world, and we are much better for it. Of course, we cannot forget that England, too, left its mark on all corners of the globe.
For some—misguidedly, in my view—talking England up is alien to them. To speak of the exciting future ahead of us in the vibrant country that we have become is difficult for some to do. All they seem able to contribute to our national conversation is a view of England as a nation in decline—a nation once great, now not. I have spent much of my several minutes speaking outlining the incredible successes and achievements of England’s past, but for those people, there is nothing more to England than its past. To them I say, “You don’t know England.” We have faced our fair share of adversity, and today of all days reminds us of that, but as Disraeli said:
“The English nation is never so great as in adversity.”
I am never so proud to be English as in those moments. It is when times are toughest that I am blown away by the courage, tenacity and generosity of the good people of this country.
The English have always found a way to get on, persevere, and, as Churchill put it, “keep buggering on”, whether after the destruction of two world wars or through the heartbreak of a disappointing Euros final. We will continue to do so. I will continue to look back at our past with the respect and reverence that it deserves, and look forward to our future with hope and optimism, because doing so is part of what makes us English, and things can only get better.
I leave my final words to the last verse of one of my, and my late grandfather’s, favourite hymns. He moved to this country in the late 1940s to help ensure that we beat fascism and defended democracy. I shall resist the temptation to sing the verse to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Disappointing? Not for some.
“I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England’s green and pleasant Land.”
We have much to do, in this House and in communities right across the country, so let us get on with. Happy St George’s day to one and all!
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is fast establishing a reputation as an effective parliamentarian and a thoroughly nice chap. His speech was appropriate and excellent in every single way, and I agreed with everything he said. It is not often that Labour MPs quote former Tory Prime Ministers—that was certainly a first, and we all much enjoyed it.
Of course, as we all do, the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the famous people from his constituency. Well, I can match that for Lincolnshire. I can talk of Sir Isaac Newton, John Smith of the pilgrim fathers, the great poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Joan Plowright. I can also mention one other person who came from Lincolnshire. I do not want to break the cosy consensus of this debate, but it is a lady whom I greatly admire. I believe that she restored greatness to this country when she was Prime Minister—I need not even mention her name because she is so famous.
St George is a saint. He was not English, of course. When the far right try to capture the flag of St George, they should perhaps try to remember that he was an Anatolian Greek. I think it is quite good that our national saint is not actually English, and that we know virtually nothing about him. What we do know is based purely on legend and is almost certainly wrong. I think that says much about the easy-going nature of the English people.
We are surrounded by saints here. In the Undercroft, we have St Etheldreda, St Edward the Confessor, St Margaret of Scotland, St Edmund and many more. In Central Lobby, we have the four great patron saints of our countries. There is a well-worn joke about St Andrew being on the way to the bar, St Patrick on the way to the exit, St David on the way to this Chamber, where we all like to talk, and St George on the way to the Lords.
Saints unite; politicians divide. I have many times expressed in this Chamber—it is rather an unfashionable point of view, but I will mention it briefly—the importance of religion in binding people together. Religion, on an ecumenical basis—being proud of one’s religion and its social ethos—should be a unifying factor. All the great religions have much the same moral creed, and I think the decline of religion in England has been rather sad.
The theme I want to talk about, so that I do not indulge entirely in clichés, is the essence of a nation being a sense of community—a community in which everybody is in a project together, all doing their bit. Sadly, there has been a decline in that sense of community in our nation. For instance, my parents, although English, were brought up in France. They came here as refugees in 1940 when the Germans invaded France because they had British passports, and they met in Bletchley Park. They had a very mixed upbringing, but they had a complete dedication to this country. When my mother was very old, she would still insist, despite being very infirm, on tottering off to the polling booth. The wartime generation, who we are celebrating today, had an absolute sense of duty and community, and we want to recreate that.
Let me make one or two points that may be more controversial. There are some factors that are breaking our sense of community, and, frankly, we all saw from the results last week that they are fuelling a feeling of disillusion. One, of course, is illegal migration. We have got to understand that this infuriates everybody. It does not just infuriate right-wing people who do not like the idea of migrants. It also infuriates many people who are working hard and feel that some are taking advantage.
I do not want to make any criticism of migrants, and I do not want to attack them personally. Take a Somali migrant—why is he trying to come here? Because for hundreds of years, his family could fish off the coast of Somalia, and then we in the west sent in huge trawlers to take all the fish away and took away his livelihood, so he resorted to piracy. Quite rightly, we then sent in warships to deal with that, so once again, they were starving, and he is now on the way here. I do not think we should approach the issue of migration in a nationalistic way. What I liked about the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was that it was patriotic, not nationalistic, and it tried to heal divisions.
The fact is that illegal migration is an open wound in our society. It is not just the cost of it, with £4 million a day spent on hotels; there is also a sense for many in our country that people who could apply for asylum in the proper, normal way are bypassing that route. We have seen from a study in The Daily Telegraph this week how easy it is to pay a people smuggler, come over here, be put in a hotel and act as a courier. That is really infuriating people.
Our fate in the Conservative party, because we are no longer in power, is that we are dependent on the Labour Government solving this problem—and they will have to solve it, because we cannot go on as we are. It is fuelling a great sense of anger in the nation. The Government have to get a derogation from the Strasbourg Court, as I have argued many times, in order to arrest, detain and deport people, and then this horrible trade will stop immediately.
Of course, there is a humanitarian point to be made here: these people smugglers are putting lives at risk, and people are dying. They are feeding on human misery. We cannot do much about it in the Conservative party; Labour is now in power. My advice to the Government is that if they want to resist this sense of disillusion in society, with people turning away from both the Labour party and the Conservative party, they have to do something about it.
They have to do something about legal migration, too. There is a great sense among people who are working hard here that people are pouring in or have poured in. I blame my Government as much as any other; I do not make a party political point here. The Labour party has taken over a difficult issue. We all know the reasons to do with the pandemic and all the other excuses, and about how we had to keep the NHS and our care homes going, but the fact that the Conservative Government allowed 1 million people in legally last year is infuriating people, and it is depressing wages. It might be good for overall GDP, but it is certainly bad for individual wealth. Again, we can do very little about it in the Conservative party, but the Government need to act. I know they are trying to take steps.
This is relevant to the debate about St George because it is about trying to recreate a sense that we are one nation, and that everybody works hard, everybody pays their taxes, and we get benefits such as free education and free health so that when we fall ill we are helped by the state. I was talking to a constituent only today and she is clearly a lady in some distress. She cannot move but has just had her personal independence payment cancelled. She has been told she has to work from home, but she cannot work from home because she does not have those sorts of skills. Ever more people are feeling angry that they have done their bit and worked hard, but when they fall ill or need benefits they are not being helped. We have to all work together to try to again get that sense of the wartime spirit—that is a bit of a cliché, but it is about a time when everybody mucked in, everybody had a job, everybody did their bit and there were, frankly, very few freeloaders.
I represent an agricultural constituency. One might wonder why I am now getting on to that subject, but again there is a sense among people in agricultural constituencies that the Government do not understand their point of view. We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire. We are leading on green energy with wind farms in the North sea; there is no opposition to them, but we are angry that entrepreneurs are importing solar panels from China made by slave labour and covering 10,000 acres in my constituency with no proper local planning. We are not against solar farms and we are not against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; we just want a sense of fairness that local communities have a say in this and there is some sense of proportion.
I think I have said my bit. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and hope we have a very good and worthwhile debate.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this important debate. It is poignant that this debate is happening today, on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day—a day to commemorate the sacrifice, bravery and resilience of so many, as well as the courage to stand up for what is right. That, to me, is the embodiment of St George’s spirit.
Sometimes the magnitude of the privilege of being in this place really hits home, and today is one of those days. Looking around, I am thinking more than I usually do of the sacrifices made by so many veterans and current service personnel from Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages, across the country and across the Commonwealth. I have thought more deeply than probably ever before about the sacrifice of my own dear grandparents during the second world war and the sacrifices of my very loved family members currently serving our country in the Royal Air Force. It is such a privilege to stand here in this place and pay tribute to them in the spirit of St George and all the good that he can represent.
In the past, St George’s day was marked by grand festivities across the land, with feasts, parades and community gatherings that brought people together in celebration of what it meant to be English. If ever we needed to revive that spirit, now is the time. We should take full advantage and celebrate our shared heritage and rebuild pride in our country and hope for the future, because patriotism is much more than rose-tinted nostalgia, and it is not the preserve of one political party or ideology.
Too often, patriotism is wielded as a weapon, its true meaning lost in the noise of performative gestures and narrow nationalism, but the patriotism I value is showing up for the people, places and principles that define our country. This St George’s day, I launched a campaign in Weston-super-Mare to make St George’s day a bank holiday. I invited my constituents to add their support to the campaign and was struck by the variety of responses we received. Many embraced it with enthusiasm, while others met it with scepticism and cynicism. It got me thinking again about why patriotism should feel suspect or shameful for some. We need to own it, because this love of our country is not exclusive to any one faction or class. It is deep pride in who we are, our shared values, and the common ground upon which we all stand. True patriotism is not about clinging to an idealised past either; it is about striving for a fairer, kinder, more just future. It is about compassion, decency, the rule of law and a good dose of common sense. And it is not blind loyalty either; it is principled commitment to making this country better for everyone.
For me, patriotism is about the everyday things in life that make England the best place in the world to live. It is walking along Sand Bay beach in my constituency, as the sea breeze whips through the air and the rain bats us in the face, making sure that we feel alive; it is listening to my favourite Frank Turner album, “England Keep My Bones”, bursting with pride about the country that I am from; it is fish and chips on the Grand Pier; it is Wallace and Gromit and Victoria Wood on TV; and it is a pot of tea to warm up after taking the dog for a walk around Ashcombe Park.
It is also standing up to injustice and caring enough to say, “We can do better than this.” Loving your country does not mean settling for the way things are, but striving for how things could be. It is about people finding their voice among those loud and vexatious people who seek to dominate with hate and division. Those who show up, do the hard graft, and organise and campaign for a better future are the patriots. So too are the teachers who stay late to help a struggling student, the single parents juggling work and family, and the many volunteers who give up their free time to serve their communities, driven not by a need for recognition but by a deep love for their neighbours and their country. Those are the everyday patriots who are too often left out of the national story.
Meanwhile, there are those who wrap themselves in the flag, while eagerly chipping away at the values it represents: equality, freedom and justice. My grandfather, a proud Dunkirk veteran, who did not like to talk about any of his time during the war, knew who those mendacious charlatans who would wear the flag but not represent any of its values were, and he instilled in each and every one of his grandchildren how to spot them. He gave us a few tips about how to take them down as well.
It is time that we reclaim patriotism as a unifying force for good. We should not shy away from it; we should own it, because what is more patriotic than striving to make this country fairer, kinder and more inclusive? From the suffragettes to striking miners, from steelworkers to civil rights campaigners, our country has always been full of people who love this country enough to demand better. If we abandon patriotism to those who use it as a blunt instrument of exclusion, we allow its true spirit to be distorted. We must champion a different kind of patriotism that is not performative or exclusionary, but principled and inclusive; one that honours and supports our armed forces, but also the carers, the bus drivers and the immigrants working tirelessly in our health and care service to look after our sick and elderly.
Loving England does not mean pretending everything is fine, but caring enough to fix what is not. It means believing in the uniqueness of our communities, the warmth of our people and the promise of our future, and it means making sure that every single one of us, regardless of background, is part of that story. Let us renew that commitment, not just to symbols and ceremonies, but to real, meaningful patriotism—the kind that brings people together, strives for fairness and justice, and dares to imagine a better country for all.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to take part in this very important debate on St George’s day and English affairs. I commend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing the debate. I will say a bit more about the hon. Member later on, because I believe that he is a fine addition to this House and that he demonstrates patriotism in all that he does.
Before I do so and before I speak more generally about St George’s day, may I say that today we also meet in solemn remembrance and in proud celebration of 8 May 1945, 80 years ago, when the guns fells silent across Europe? Victory in Europe Day marked not just the end of a long and brutal war on our continent, but the triumph of courage, unity and unyielding resolve over tyranny. In Romford, Essex and across England, the church bells rang out, neighbours embraced and families paused to remember those who had lost loved ones, but also to welcome those who had returned. We remember the generation who faced that unimaginable darkness with unwavering bravery: the soldiers who fought on land, at sea and in the air; the families who endured the blitz; the workers and nurses who kept our nation going; and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
Let us never forget that peace is not simply inherited, but earned, and it must be defended anew by each generation. As we reflect on Victory in Europe Day, we honour our past by committing to a future shaped by democracy, justice and international co-operation.
I pay tribute to my father, Frederick William Rosindell, who was an officer in the Royal Air Force during the second world war and flew transport planes. He also served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, with which he trained in Canada during the second world war. We owe so much to all my constituents and their loved ones who served during that conflict and gave us the freedom that we enjoy today. I was proud to be at the town hall in Romford today alongside the mayor of the London borough of Havering, Councillor Gerry O’Sullivan, to raise the VE flag in tribute to all those who served King, Queen and country and gave us the freedom that we sometimes but should never take for granted.
St George’s day runs deep. We should all celebrate the spirit of St George with great pride. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British heritage and of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George—my deputy chair is none other than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—I am so pleased that we are able to speak today in this general debate about our Englishness and all that it entails. The hon. Member spoke passionately about flag, country and people, and as far as I am concerned that sums everything up. I again thank him for everything that he does to promote British and English patriotism and respect for our heritage and traditions in this place and across the country. As I said earlier, he is a fine addition to the House of Commons.
Thanks to the kind permission of Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I hosted a parliamentary St George’s day reception in the state apartments in Speaker’s House on St George’s day on 23 April. That celebration brought together English music, food, wine and politicians to celebrate our country and all that is great about our heritage. I offer a special tribute to the band of the Romford Drum & Trumpet Corps, which played the fanfares on that day, and to Kerrie Kavanagh, who organised that.
I also offer a tribute to the wonderful pianist, Drew Steanson, who played English music on Mr Speaker’s grand piano in the state apartments, and to the outstanding opera singers, Terry Bosshard and Marie McLaughlin, who sang “Jerusalem” and the national anthem for us. I cannot possibly forget the Silverhand Estate winery in Kent, which donated the magnificent English sparkling wine. I also offer a tribute to all those who volunteered their time and effort to make it such a special annual occasion, which Mr Speaker hosts for us here in Parliament. I am pleased to let Members know that they will be able to avail themselves of the opportunity again next year, as Mr Speaker has already invited us to host another St George’s day reception.
I pay tribute to Nick Dutt, the chairman of the Royal Society of Saint George, for the work that he does, and to Cliff Trowse, the co-ordinator of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George. I do not think I am meant to show props, but I will do so for one second if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the foundation charter of our branch of the society here in Parliament, which was inaugurated on 23 April 2009. I invite all hon. Members of all parties and Members of the other place to join the Royal Society of Saint George here in Parliament to show support for England and our traditions and for the magnificent work of the society not only in this country, but throughout the world.
I also pay tribute to Tony Appleton, the magnificent town crier of Romford. He is also a royal town crier—he announces royal births outside Buckingham Palace—but he is the Romford town crier, and he was in Parliament on 23 April two weeks ago to ring the bell and announce the order of service for the day. Finally, of course, I pay tribute to Barry Hearn OBE, who kindly supported this year’s event so generously.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned some great people—national treasures, great figures in the culture and history of our country—but he forgot a few. I will mention one or two who regularly attend our St George’s day celebrations here in Parliament. Of course, we cannot forget Su Pollard, who comes to our St George’s day event most years, or Patti Boulaye OBE, who also attends and regularly sings for us in Speaker’s House. Finally, I would like to mention Vicki Michelle MBE—from “’Allo ’Allo”, of course. What better person to remember on this day of VE 80? I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; if you could convey our thanks to Mr Speaker for hosting that wonderful event, I would be grateful. I hope that hon. Members will join us next year.
Although the great feast day of St George, the patron saint of England and Englishness, is now celebrated with zeal in this place and in many towns and villages across our country, it is notable that in wider cultural and civic life the celebration of Englishness can sometimes be frowned on and English culture can even be demeaned by some. That is part of the reason for the existence of the Royal Society of Saint George, under royal patronage. It has the noble object of promoting Englishness and the English way of life, which I am proud to support as both a Member of Parliament and chairman of the society’s branch in the Houses of Parliament.
It is, however, important to note that the need for greater recognition and appreciation of England and her people runs beyond the level of culture, deep into the roots of our constitutional and devolutionary arrangements. Under the devolutionary arrangements enacted at the turn of the century, with pieces of legislation such as the Scotland Act 1998 that created the Scottish Parliament, regional parliaments were also created. For the first time in centuries, the unifying linchpin of these islands—the Crown in Parliament—seemed to have been wrenched out of place. It is demonstrably true that this has weakened the national unity of our nation and caused some regional, nationalistic and factionalised tendencies, which I believe run counter to Britain’s cultural, institutional and constitutional heritage. However, it is the reality we must operate in today, even if we do not relish it.
Perhaps the most intellectually consistent response would be to advocate for the reversal of devolution, but of course, there is unlikely to be such a political appetite today to do so. What must be acknowledged is that England, the most populous region with the biggest economy, is the only home nation not to have her own devolved Parliament. This has created a democratic deficit in which the proud people of England—such as those in my constituency of Romford, Essex—are left with the rich cultural heritage I outlined earlier but a rather diminished democratic voice.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend will know that I am a very strong supporter of this Parliament and this United Kingdom. I was not, of course, a Member of this House when devolution was introduced, but had I been here at the time, I most certainly would not have voted to break up our United Kingdom in the way that we have done by creating different Parliaments and Assemblies across the UK—including the London Assembly, which I would love to see abolished very soon.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I appreciate that the hon. Member is speaking about St George’s day and English affairs, but I would just take issue with his use of the phrase “break up” to describe the effect of devolution on our country. We devolved some of the power closer to the people so that they felt more represented. That was not an attempt to break up the country. I say as a member of the party which, along with the Labour party, was instrumental in achieving devolution that it was to hold the country together while allowing people to feel closer to where decisions are made.
Andrew Rosindell
I have the utmost respect for the hon. Lady, and she makes an extremely valid and important point. Nobody wants to break up the United Kingdom, and I did not intend to cause offence by saying that. I believe that all Members of Parliament should be equal. Elected representatives should be equal, but if we create different types of elected representation at different levels, it means that English MPs have a different role from Scottish MPs, because they have MSPs in Scotland, who have another role. By doing so, we are muddling up our constitution, and I regret that that happened, but we have to move on. That is now a quarter of a century ago, and we need to think about the future.
There have been certain attempts to deconstruct that democratic deficit. We had English votes for English laws, also known as EVEL. That procedure was brought into the House. Unitary authorities and mayoralties have been created across England, and we are seeing more being created as we speak. The procedure for creating mayoralties is too remote and the procedure to make them meaningful and to appeal to people who feel ignored is looked at with contempt. These mayoralties are not supported by most people. I think they believe in local democracy at a truly local level, and that is not solved by creating vast regional mayoralties and assemblies that are not in tune with local people in local communities.
There may be merit in the new devolutionary arrangements being considered at local government level, but those will only be effective if they address the cultural, economic and political realities of the localities with which they are concerned. For example, yesterday I led an Adjournment debate about the London borough of Havering and Essex devolution. Apparently, Havering is not allowed to be considered as part of devolution in Essex. In that debate, I highlighted how successive regional London authorities and the plans for Essex devolution have ignored the local Essex identities of my constituents, particularly in Romford. That has happened under successive Governments.
The historic counties, in the patchwork of traditional England, will play an important part in devolution. I hope the Minister will take back the point that perhaps the historic counties and the ceremonial counties could be aligned to avoid the muddle and confusion. Many Members and I have to debate with people over whether places such as Romford are really Essex or London—what are we? It muddles a lot of people’s minds and creates a lot of confusion, and it needs to be resolved. Aligning the historic and the ceremonial counties would go a long way to solving that. It would mean that local government could be purely for administration and the provision of local services, and it would mean that people’s local identities were not mixed up.
I therefore request that the Government open up a discussion and a plan for restoring all the facets of the English way of life, so that my constituents no longer feel that they are being ignored. It is an obvious but integral point that any attempt to deconstruct and replace the current devolutionary arrangements can only be successful if hard-working people, like my constituents in Romford, Essex, are listened to and heard. I am sure that all Members of the House would agree that their constituents’ voices must be heard. English democracy might then be restored to the place of pride it used to occupy, just as the English cultural repertoire that had pride of place in Speaker’s House earlier this year made such an impact on so many of us.
As we reflect on our proud English history, our magnificent British traditions, the Commonwealth of nations, the British overseas territories, the Crown dependencies and the wider British family, and all that our forebears achieved in giving us the magnificent land and magnificent island nation that we have today, I can do no better than to quote the words of Sir Winston Churchill:
“Advance Britannia! Long Live the Cause of Freedom! God Save the King!”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on bringing this debate to the House. I am delighted to join Members from across the House in celebrating St George’s day and English affairs, for it is only right that we take the time to celebrate our history, our heritage and our national character, to reflect on what it means to be English, and to come together in unity and pride.
I fondly recall marking St George’s day last year as a Minister in Downing Street, where we hosted an event that brought together business leaders, charities, veterans, community leaders and voluntary organisations—outstanding members of the community who all play a vital role in our country. It reminded me just how proud we should be of our country. We must take pride in our history in order to instil the richness of our culture and our values in the next generation, and to reclaim what Britishness means to us all.
For a small country, we have well and truly punched above our weight. We have defended the world not once, but twice, in two world wars—something that must never be forgotten. Before this debate, we rightly marked the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day over in Westminster Abbey. The great-great-grandson of Sir Winston Churchill lit the candle of peace 80 years on from Sir Winston’s famous speech, in which he told the nation that the war had ended. Like so many other Members, we will leave the House straight after this debate to go back to our constituencies. I will be going to Comberbach in Tatton to share in the VE Day celebrations this evening.
As we reflect and commemorate VE Day, we must ask ourselves one crucial question: have we lived up to the example set by those great patriotic individuals who fought and died to protect our freedoms and give us peace? For peace and freedoms do not just happen; they are fought for. In pondering that question—and we may have different answers—we need to rethink what our duty is to one another and to our country, to make sure that we do stand up for those same freedoms today, and to protect the legacy of those who stood before us and made the ultimate sacrifice, for we cannot and must not cower to those who deny our great past, or be traduced by those who are embarrassed or who denounce it. The voice of the right-minded majority must remind those detractors of what we stand for and what we have given the world.
Our great country was the cradle of the industrial revolution, and the birthplace of the computer and the internet. We gave the world football, rugby and cricket. We discovered gravity and evolution, and we eradicated smallpox. We have produced literary geniuses such as Shakespeare, Dickens and the Brontës, great composers from Elgar to Britten and, from my home town, the Beatles—those four lads who took music to the world. We have produced artists such as Constable, Turner and, yes, even Banksy. Innovation and entrepreneurialism are in our country’s DNA, and that must be remembered and continued.
I know that our English character is to be stoical—to find a queue and wait patiently in it—and not to brag. In fact, we would rather hide our light under a bushel than extol our virtues, but now is not the time for that. In an era of speed and fast communications, when facts can be lost and fake becomes real, we need to remember who we are and what we have given to the world. We are a positive voice in an ever-more complicated and dangerous world, and we need to take heed of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which rightly celebrate their national days. We must do the same, too.
Let us be clear: it is time for the majority of law-abiding, hard-working and patriotic people of England to have their say, to stand up for our values—the values of honour, courage, faith and freedom, which have stood the test of time—and to sing with one voice that we are proud of England, proud of Great Britain and proud to be British. We need to take on the mantle of St George, the warrior saint who is the patron saint of England, as a symbol of strength, conviction and righteous purpose, who reminds us that our nation has never been afraid to stand up for what is right.
In the Chamber where I am delivering this speech, and where we have all spoken so positively today, let me say that I am very proud, as I know we all are, to serve in this Parliament. It is the mother of Parliaments, and the heart of a thriving democracy that has been the model for so many other countries around the world.
Let us speak with one voice, with pride and unity, and say clearly and unapologetically that we are proud to be English, we are proud of our past, and we believe in our future. Today we stand together to celebrate what makes us all English, to celebrate that we are all British and to remember, today of all days, victory in Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Allow me to start by thanking the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for proposing this debate and congratulating him on his excellent introductory speech. He talked about the importance of seeing the flag of St George as a positive, and avoiding the temptation in some quarters to demean it. That point was also made by the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme also talked about the influence of English language, culture, sport and history all over the world, and highlighted the courage and tenacity of the English character.
Of course, today of all days, I join all Members across the House in paying tribute to the English and British people who fought in the second world war—enabling us to have this debate today—to protect democracy across Europe.
Like the hon. Member for Romford, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned singing, and I surely speak for the whole House when I express my disappointment that he opted not to sing to us, but I hope he will rectify that on a future occasion. He also paid tribute to former Prime Minister Winston Churchill—as did the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Romford and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey)—who exemplified public service, as do Members of this House to this day.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough took us through a little of the history of St George, and I will do a little bit more of that. Legend has it that St George slew an evil dragon that was plaguing a local town and saved a princess. It is traditionally a Christian celebration, as the story goes that St George offered to kill the dragon only if the town converted to Christianity. However, the historical record points to the fact that George was likely among those who suffered for their faith during the last great persecution of the Church initiated in the year 303 by the Roman emperor Diocletian.
In fact, it was not until the mid-13th century that George became firmly associated with the English nation, especially with the Crown and at times of war, and it was not until the time of Henry VIII that the St George’s cross became the national flag. Veneration of George has always had a strong popular dimension, and this was helped along by his dragon-slaying powers. Depictions of the saint in combat with the fearsome serpent date from at least the ninth century. A revival of contemporary St George’s day celebrations emerged in the 1990s, with the St George’s flag a regular feature at sporting events, in churches and in use by local government and other public bodies.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has some important contributions to make. We have Dragon hill near Uffington, where legend has it that St George slayed the dragon, and the quintessentially English village of Upton has the recently refurbished George public house, which is very much enjoyed by parishioners of that village and many from further afield. Elsewhere in Oxfordshire there is the St George’s tower in Oxford castle, a key battleground of the English civil war, which is key to the foundations of our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
But it is also interesting to note that St George and St George’s day has an international dimension to this most English of special days. It is a day of celebration in, among others: Hungary, Portugal, Spain, German, Brazil, Serbia and Greece. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned calls for St George’s Day to become an English national holiday, calls supported by English Heritage and the organisation in which the hon. Member for Romford is very active, the Royal Society of St George. I am sure that is something that many Members would support.
Contributions to the debate have also reflected on what Englishness means to us today. St George’s Day is an opportunity to take pride in our country’s achievements, including the pivotal role England and its Parliament played in the birth of modern democracy. England’s story is one of community spirit, innovation and compassion; our strength lying in the rich tapestry of rural villages, bustling towns and global cities that make up our country. We believe that patriotism should never mean exclusion. To be proudly English is to embrace the rich diversity of our country, and the rights and freedoms we all share.
Hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Romford, talked about what England needs to thrive. The Liberal Democrats support the establishment of a UK constitutional convention to draft a new federal constitution, clearly defining powers at each level of government, based on democratic engagement, liberal values and fair resource distribution. The convention must develop an inclusive structure for government in England, giving all regions a say in how they are governed. Every part of England should have the right to secure a devolution deal that works for local people and is tailored to the unique local dynamics of England’s regions. Devolution must come with proper funding. Councils and combined authorities need a sustained increase in funding, reflecting demand and reversing the severe pressures facing local services.
We back the creation of a UK council of ministers, bringing together devolved Governments and English regional leaders to collaborate on national policy and uphold the principles of federal co-operation. Decisions on local government reorganisation must be driven by councils and communities, not imposed without consultation. It is unacceptable for changes to bypass district councils and exclude public input. It is essential that any devolution should promote inclusive economic growth, better public services and democratic accountability, so that we can continue to ensure that England is a great place.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a privilege to rise on behalf of the shadow Culture team to mark St George’s day. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate.
“With St George in my heart keep me English, with St George in my heart I pray, with St George in my heart keep me English, keep me English till my dying day.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be English and so should we all. Far from being just a nation of shopkeepers, as wrongly claimed, England’s accomplishments are vast. We have given so much to the world: from the writings of Shakespeare to football, rugby and cricket, and to parliamentary democracy itself in this mother of all Parliaments. England’s history is one of heroes and bravery: Nelson, Wellington, Churchill; good triumphing over evil; freedom overcoming tyranny; and the sacrifices of the greatest generation, which we rightly celebrate this week for VE Day, 80 years on. And we give thanks to our incredible armed forces serving today.
We Conservatives are not ashamed to celebrate England’s long and storied history; to remind the world that England is not a sleeping lion, but a proud and great nation ready to roar again. England’s culture is living, breathing and shaped by the people who have called this green and pleasant land home in times gone by, and by all of us today. We should never take that inheritance for granted. Culture matters: it binds us together, gives us a common identity and pride, and it provides the foundations for our civic life. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that one of the most important roles of every Government is to protect and promote the cultural fabric of our nation.
St George is more than a figure of legend. As our patron saint, he represents ideals that are woven deeply into the English character: courage, service and honour. His story has inspired generations to stand firm in defence of what is right, and it remains a powerful symbol of national unity and Christian faith. Those values and his inspiration were exemplified by those we commemorate throughout this week with our VE Day celebrations nationwide.
While in this House on the anniversary of VE Day itself, I want to recognise the immense sacrifice those veterans made for us. For our tomorrow, they gave their today. Their courage, service and duty must inspire us all in this House. I am a proud uncle today, as my seven-year-old niece took my great-grandfather Jack’s and my great-uncle Bill’s medals to her school party.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote Sir Winston Churchill’s words 80 years ago today:
“We were the first, in this ancient island, to draw the sword against tyranny. After a while we were left all alone against the most tremendous military power that has been seen… But every man, woman and child in the country had no thought of quitting the struggle… This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.”
I am sure that every Member will have seen how these values are preserved and expressed in not only our institutions, but our everyday lives and throughout our history, traditions, literature and music, and in the spirit of local communities around the country.
We must make sure that English culture—both historic and contemporary—is properly supported and celebrated, which means protecting heritage sites, funding grassroots arts, civil society and music, championing English literature in our schools, and giving local communities a stronger voice in how their stories are told and preserved. This is not about nostalgia; it is about an enduring national pride and having the confidence to tell England’s stories, warts and all, and teach the next generation that our past is not to be erased, but to be understood and learned from.
We must be clear: English identity is not exclusionary. It is inclusive, civic-minded and rooted in shared experience. From the village green to the city high street, from brass bands to bustling markets, English culture thrives in our community—not in Whitehall, but in areas such as my home of Bexley, and in every town and city across our great country.
In this House, we rightly celebrate the Union of our United Kingdom. But England, with its unique blends of peoples, cultures and voices, must never, ever be taken for granted. In this St George’s day debate, the Conservatives will continue to proudly fly the flag not just for tradition’s sake, but for what it represents: an England that is resilient, creative and confident in its future. Let us therefore support and invest in the cultural life of our nation, not only for the obvious economic return, but because our culture is the heart of our nation and we should be proud of it—every field, every hedgerow. Together across this House, let us reaffirm our commitment to telling England’s story—rich, complex and full of hope —with a renewed pride.
In closing—if you would indulge me one final time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will quote Shakespeare’s “Richard II”:
“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself…
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this important debate, as well as the co-sponsors of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). We have heard incredibly heartfelt and powerful speeches today from the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and the Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).
The twenty-third of April—the feast day of St George—has been celebrated in England for hundreds of years and remains an enduring symbol of our heritage and national spirit. St George himself was a soldier of the Roman empire who stood up for his beliefs, refusing to renounce his faith even in the face of persecution. His unwavering courage made him a symbol of strength, fairness and perseverance, earning him sainthood and recognition across the world. Those values of courage, strength, perseverance, fairness and decency are a distillation of what it means to be English—so much of which we see reflected across our society, throughout our history and in our present day.
To be English is to be proudly part of the United Kingdom. We are brought together by our shared values, faith in democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance. As a family of nations, we are stronger together than we are apart—strengthened by our diversity and bound by our common endeavour. It is of course fitting that we reflect on these values, as we mark VE Day today, and remember all those who fought bravely for our nation. On the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe over the forces of fascism, we honour the sacrifices that they made for our freedom.
As we have heard throughout this debate, St George’s day gives us the perfect opportunity to celebrate our heritage—to reflect on what makes England great and to unite people under a shared sense of belonging and national pride.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Lady speaks passionately about the importance of St George’s day, but will the Government consider making St George’s day a public holiday in England? We can learn from the wonderful example of Ireland where St Patrick’s day is a public holiday throughout the island of Ireland. Can we not do the same for England?
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Member makes an important point. I will not be able to respond with a positive answer right now, but as he is a powerful advocate and campaigner, I know that he will continue to make the case to this Government.
England is a nation of invention and innovation, as others have pointed out. From the creation of the world’s first vaccine to the invention of the computer and the world wide web, we have been at the forefront of technology, science and healthcare, making a global impact on the challenges that define our times. We have so much to be proud of. We are a nation of creativity and culture. We are the land of Shakespeare, Austen, Brontë, Newton and Magna Carta, and the land of one of the oldest Parliaments in the world. We are the mother of Parliaments. England has given voice to the plays, literature, songs, television programmes and films that have defined the stories that have been told for generations.
Hon. Members have powerfully and beautifully described the rich heritage and culture that defines this nation, but we are also a nation of sporting success, from football and cricket to triumphs in world cycling, Formula One and much else. England has a proud history of entrepreneurial ingenuity, from the pioneering trades of our market towns and historic mills to today’s thriving tech hubs, creative start-ups and world-class financial centres. England’s spirit of enterprise has adapted, innovated and driven progress, shaping our economy and influencing the world, from the industrial revolution to the digital age.
England is also a place of distinct beauty. From the enchanting Cornish coastline to the rugged wilderness of Northumberland, the tranquil lakes of Cumbria and the majestic cliffs of Dover, our landscape captivates, inspires and is cherished by people who live here and by people who visit.
Beyond the achievements lies something more powerful—our sense of service and community. We see this commitment every day, from the courage and bravery of those in the armed forces to the compassion and skill of our doctors and nurses in the NHS, from the dedication of our teachers to the generosity of volunteers in our charities, faith groups and community organisations across the nation. Together, their efforts embody the very best of England and the United Kingdom.
We are proud to be a nation that fosters opportunity and aspiration for all. This is where someone from a working-class background can rise to become Prime Minister, and where a British Hindu can hold the highest office in our country as Prime Minister. On a personal note, it is a great source of pride for me to be responding to this debate as a Minister of the Crown. I say that as someone who was born in Bangladesh, was elected as Britain’s first Bangladeshi-origin MP—and whose father was born in 1937, was 10 years old during partition, at the end of empire, and came to this country in the 1960s to work here and make a life for himself. It is a great source of pride that Englishness and Britishness is about all of us, and that I and others in this House can feel that we too belong and are English as well as British, alongside our multiple identities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme demonstrated when talking about his heritage and background.
Closer to home, Members mentioned events in Speaker’s House. Events like those and the St George’s day festival in Trafalgar Square help to celebrate our rich heritage through music and Morris dancing—I have not tried the latter, but perhaps Members will be inspired to do so after this debate. We have also seen a bustling parade in Manchester, with an array of community groups and local residents coming together to show how proud they are of their local area, local heritage and our identity.
Sadly, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there are some who seek to divide us. It is on all of us to make sure that we fight against the forces of division. Such individuals seek to sow division between us and our communities and to create an idea that English national identity is an exclusive, white-only identity. That is not the case. We see that in this debate today and in the contributions we have all made. Identity is not pure; it is mixed and complex. We must stand up for the values of respect, tolerance and fair play; they are the essence of Englishness and Britishness, and define us as a nation.
The Government are committed to investing in our communities and channelling a spirit of pride, perseverance and positivity that reflects the best of St George’s day. Through our plan for change, we are focused on what matters: easing the cost of living, restoring pride in our public services, making streets safer, building the homes people need, expanding opportunities for all and supporting our veterans with real homes for heroes.
We know that this change starts with what matters most to local communities—the places we call home. The “English Devolution” White Paper sets an ambitious new framework for English devolution, moving power out of Westminster. Mayors will have a range of powers across housing, planning, transport, energy, skills and employment, and more, in order to deliver the missions that we have set out to transform our country. The new £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million in funding over the next decade for 75 communities across the UK, including 58 in England. The plan will lay the foundations to kickstart local growth and drive up living standards.
We will also invest in our heritage. English identity exists in our heritage and culture, and this Government will protect the places that form our communities. England’s finest heritage buildings are an integral part of our culture. We are allocating £15 million for heritage sites that are at risk, providing grants for repairs and conservation to heritage buildings, with a focus on the sites in most need. This funding will restore local heritage, such as shops, pubs, parks and town halls.
We are also providing just under £5 million for the heritage revival fund to empower local people to take control of and look after their local heritage. It will support community organisations to own neglected heritage buildings and bring them back into good use. As we take pride in these places, we must also protect them for the generations who walk these paths after us. We will also support our businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive, and the Government will publish a new small and medium- sized enterprises strategy later this year.
This Government will protect our shores against external threats and against those who seek to harm our way of life or divide us. We have shown that through our biggest defence investment since the end of the cold war.
Our strength as a nation is measured not just in what we stand against but in what we stand for, which is community, service and a shared belief in a better future. We must inspire the next generation to carry forward the best of England through education, opportunity and the belief that no matter who you are or where you come from, you belong, and you can help shape this country’s future.
I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their powerful contributions to this important debate. On VE Day, we honour those who gave their life for our freedom and for a better tomorrow. As the Prime Minister said at the recent St George’s day reception at 10 Downing Street, let us take pride in our national identity and in all those who keep the country going.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to all colleagues who spoke in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had to return home for a family emergency; otherwise, she would have taken part. The same goes for my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson).
I am grateful to the Father of the House for his wise words on immigration, faith and communities. I am grateful for his compliment, which will do wonders for my reputation in the Government Whips Office. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who gave an excellent speech—that is no surprise because he went to school in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who mentioned English sparkling wine, while I forgot to. That is no surprise, because he is a man who keeps it successful and thriving. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) knows that Merseyside has an important role in my family’s life. I thank her for her speedy talk on England’s character and history. I enjoyed her typically lefty reflection on the power of Banksy, and thank her for that. In all seriousness, she gave an important speech and, like her, I am proud to be British and proud to be English.
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for his generous comments. He wanted me to sing. I want to get re-elected, so I am not sure that singing would be a good idea. If I did it not here but at home, I suspect that my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), would have something to say about it, so I will not take up his invitation. I am grateful to both the shadow Minister and the Minister for their generous remarks and the uniformity of their comments.
This has been an excellent debate, celebrating all that is good about England, all that we have achieved and all that we must do together. It is no surprise, but it is also unfortunate, that there were only three parties represented in the House for the duration of the debate: the Labour party, the Tories and the Liberals. Let that be a lesson to many in our communities up and down England. England is a great country, where so much good has been done, but there is so much more to do, so let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered St George’s Day and English affairs.
Brain Tumours: Research and Treatment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that Brain Tumour Awareness Month took place in March; further notes that there has been no progress in NHS treatment of brain tumours in 20 years and that they are the biggest cancer killer of people under the age of 40; calls on the Government to demand that the National Institute for Health and Care Research take action to spend the £40 million provided by the Government for brain tumour research in 2018 for innovative and meaningful drug trials, following the death of the late Baroness Tessa Jowell; and further calls on the Government to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to undertake research into the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours and to require the NHS repurposing service to consider the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours.
On Saturday 27 November 2021, Margaret collapsed in front of me without warning. She lay on the floor convulsing in epileptic fits. By 4 am, two young doctors at University College hospital told me that she had a brain tumour. On the Wednesday, as I approached her bed on the ward, she said, “Look at that doctor. He can’t look at me—the news from that scan must be really bad. Bring him over.” Of course, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, she was always right.
My brilliant sister Margaret—the fiercest, strongest, bravest, kindest woman I have ever known—had a glioblastoma brain tumour. When it comes to such brain tumours, there is an average life expectancy of nine months from diagnosis and a five-year survival rate of just 5%; there has been no improvement in NHS treatment in 20 years; and the UK is graded 27th out of 29 comparable countries for its performance. Glioblastoma was the only opponent that my sister had never beaten, but over 18 months, she gave it her very best shot.
Standing here, just six weeks before the second anniversary of her loss, I remain as determined as ever to fight for a cure for this savage cancer in the face of what can only be described as indifference from the NHS, the pharmaceutical industries, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and, I regret to say, most of the cancer charities. In fighting this, I believe that we can find a path to improved treatment for not just glioblastoma but all rare cancers. However, that will happen only if we—Members of this House, cancer campaigners, patients and the bereaved—make it happen, because the system currently conforms to Einstein’s definition of madness: it continues to do the same thing but expects different outcomes. Don’t get me wrong; the system would like to cure glioblastoma, but it is just proving a bit difficult.
What is laughingly described as the gold standard of NHS treatment has not changed in 20 years. It includes surgery, which does not actually remove the tumour, a brutal eight weeks of radiotherapy, and then as much temozolomide chemotherapy as someone can take, which in Margaret’s case was not very much. Then, nothing from the NHS. Those with savings, homes, pensions or the ability to fundraise use everything they have to travel to other countries where people believe that those diagnosed with a terminal disease should have access to all available treatments. In Margaret’s case, that person was Dr Sahinbas in Düsseldorf. As for those for whom that is not an option—and there are many—our holy, revered NHS expects them just to lay down, take their fate and die. Just as I would not let Margaret lay down and die, we should not let anyone in the UK simply lay down and die from a glioblastoma. Here is how we can change things.
First, we need early diagnosis. In the vast majority of glioblastoma cases, the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams can diagnose the tumour from an MRI scan. In most cases, they wait for surgery, which could take a full eight weeks from the MRI. Given that developing groundbreaking immunotherapy treatments are based on giving the drugs ahead of surgery, early MRI diagnosis would allow improvement in treatments and outcomes.
Secondly, we need drug trials. The only way to find a cure for glioblastoma and other rare cancers is through drug trials, but as those with such cancers know, there are none. NHS trials have collapsed and the pharmaceutical industry concentrates on the large, lucrative conditions: breast, prostate, bowel and lung cancers. If we believe that no cancer should be left behind in a country with some of the most innovative pharmaceutical companies and a healthcare system as universal as ours, the Government should broker a partnership between that industry and the NHS to make sure that new or repurposed drugs are trialled for all cancers. They should share the early risk; the NHS should run the trials and the drug companies should be expected to provide the drugs. Will the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Care directly support a test case project for glioblastoma treatment, in which a strategy is developed with AstraZeneca, which has set up a rare cancer unit?
Thirdly, we must keep costs down. Costs are always a barrier to more drug trials. However, trials carried out through the National Institute for Health and Care Research are conducted at a reduced cost. To keep costs down, trials into glioblastoma and other rare cancers should automatically be NIHR-badged, and all funded trials should be given access to NHS resources.
Fourthly, the mission of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency should be reviewed. The MHRA is the gatekeeper of drugs licensing in the UK, and it understandably requires that all data on all trials be published, but in my personal experience from speaking with pharmaceutical companies, that is a barrier to them providing their best and most innovative drugs. While I accept that all information should be published, information on drug trials should be published for their respective cancers. If a drug that was originally for lung cancer is trialled on glioblastoma, that should be recorded separately.
Fifthly, we need to change the purpose of the NHS medicines repurposing project to provide existing drugs for trial. Many of our leading medical oncologists believe that there is already a drug in use that could improve and maybe even cure glioblastoma, but it has never been trialled. That is why I am calling for the repurposing of the NHS medicines repurposing programme; we should add the aim of supplying existing drugs for the treatment of glioblastoma and other rare cancers.
I have submitted these five proposed pledges to the Government’s consultation on the national cancer plan. They are born out of my personal experience of talking to anybody who moves about glioblastoma over the last two years. I am only one MP, with a GCSE in biology, but I hope with all my heart that my submission will be taken seriously, and that the Government will grab it with both hands to ensure that nobody else goes through what my sister went through.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for that moving speech. I would like to place on the record my love and admiration for her sister Margaret.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). This is a debate that I wish we were not at. I wish there was no need for us to have this debate, but sadly there is. This is an issue that I have come to know more about personally in the last few months, after a young constituent came to me. Archie is a 22-year-old elite athlete from Edinburgh, training for the Commonwealth games and the Olympic trials. He was diagnosed with an inoperable and terminal IDH-mutant low-grade glioma—a rare form of brain tumour that disproportionately affects younger people. As I say, he is 22 years old.
However, there should be good news, because there is a new highly promising drug—so promising, I am told, that the trials were stopped midway through, and those on the placebo were given the drug, because it was proving so successful in inhibiting the growth of the tumour. It was developed in Edinburgh and is available to eligible patients through a named patient programme, through which it is being administered free of charge, but not everywhere—only, in Scotland, in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Tayside areas.
However, Archie has not been given access to the drug because of the routine blood-testing and the cost to NHS Lothian. I and his MSP have written to NHS Scotland and the Lothian health board, and I have written to the drug company, to ask how we can make the drug available. It seems the cruellest of things that a drug is available, having been partly developed in Archie’s own city, but he cannot have it. I know that the NHS is devolved, but drug policy is not. It seems unfair that we live with a situation in which lifesaving treatments are decided by postcode. People are passed from pillar to post only to be told that they cannot or will not have treatments that are available, and that the only options are radiotherapy, chemotherapy and the other interventions that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden described, which could be replaced.
One word covers a lot of the excuses that we have been given: affordability—as if we are dealing with anything other than a human being whose situation is no fault of their own. I understand the pressures on finances, on resources and on the NHS—we all do—but that cannot mean a limit to our ambition in what we can do for those who are suffering. We are all here because we believe that we can make a difference. I certainly did not come here with the intention of sitting back and accepting that I could not help when it comes to health or that we would talk about saving money when we should talk about saving lives.
I count myself lucky to have met so many dedicated and strong people since I was invited into Archie’s home to talk with him and his family about the challenges they face and how we could help them. One of those people is Dawn from the Astro Brain Tumour Fund, whose son Shay was diagnosed with a grade 2 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. He said:
“Chemotherapy and radiotherapy. That’s what the future holds for me. After battling through an awake brain surgery, months of rehabilitation, waking up every day battling this disease in my own head, putting a smile on my face for those around me, just to have to go through another year of turmoil and appointments, only to be left with potential long-term cognitive issues and even further away from the 24-year-old I knew on 9 April 2021. That is not a cure.”
It is no longer good enough to say that treatment is too difficult or expensive. Families are crowdfunding for treatment and looking abroad. This is not the NHS that Bevan envisaged; it is not the NHS that any of us wants. We are letting people down if we do not do as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden suggested by testing such drugs on everyone and making them available everywhere. When such a drug comes up and can save people’s lives, surely we should ensure that it is available throughout the country, without geographical limits.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for the way she has pursued this issue seriously and with such emotion. I knew her sister Margaret. She was a Labour party organiser and I knew her for 45 years. She terrified me, to be honest, over the years, but I always admired her commitment to the Labour party and the wider community. I think Margaret would be proud of her sister for the speech she made today and the work that she has done.
I congratulate the Milan group, a women’s group in my constituency—they call themselves a ladies group. It is a group of Asian ladies who came together when one lost their daughter to a brain tumour. They come together every year, including last weekend, when they raised £2,500 for the Brain Tumour Charity. Each year, they get me to do something. This year, I sang in Punjabi, and they had to lock the doors. The previous year, I danced to bhangra music—I tried to purchase the video off them because it was going viral at one point. That raised a large amount of money and shows the commitment in the wider community, as people become more aware of the situation and of the impact of brain tumours, particularly among children. People realise that something must be done.
I want to make a particular point to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has said. There is a desperate need to look at the mechanisms by which new drugs are brought forward and trialled and people can access those trials. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, and we met one family who were desperate to get on to a trial of a particular drug, but the drug was being delayed through the mechanisms we have at the moment. I completely understand the processes we have to go through to ensure that a drug is safe and does not cause harm, but there is frustration at how long that takes and the fact that some people who have no other option are not being allowed to access those trials quickly or effectively enough. On that one occasion, we met the drug company, and as an all-party group, I think we did have a beneficial effect in bringing forward the trials and enabling some of the sufferers to access those trials, which we hope will be successful.
One of the most important points my hon. Friend made is that the system just is not working at the moment. It is producing an element of frustration and a lack of confidence in the NHS, which is disappointing. That is because the treatments are not being brought forward quickly enough, the access to the trials is tortuous to say the least, and there does not seem to be any mechanism by which we are co-ordinating better with the pharmaceutical industry and trying to set priorities for it. My hon. Friend mentioned why the industry concentrates on other cancers—because that is where the big profits are—but there has to be some way in which we can incentivise these companies to focus on this range of conditions.
The problem is that there are so many types of brain tumour, and it is difficult to see a company investing a large amount of money when there might be only a limited impact on a small group of patients. However, that is where Government come in. The resourcing of the experimentation, research and trials is so important, and that falls to the state. My hon. Friend has made the point in previous debates and in meetings of our all-party group that, even where the money is there to enable that to happen, it is not getting out there. We have gone through the different organisational structures to investigate what the issue is. I think it is a lack of leadership, and that needs to come from Government.
One of the suggestions I put to the Minister is that there needs to be a conference—it might be a one-off—where we bring everybody together again. The Government have put forward their proposals in the cancer strategy, and they have looked at the pathways, but a new element of zest is needed. We need to bring the pharmaceutical companies in and have an honest discussion about whether the existing structures are working well enough and whether there needs to be some rationalisation, to ensure that we are more effective and speedy in our actions and to investigate what the pharmaceutical companies need in order for research to be undertaken speedily, more effectively and with greater patient access.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, there is an issue with the funding of individual drugs. If there is to be a rationing process, it is better to be open and transparent about how rational the implementation is across England, Scotland and Wales. At the moment, there seems to be a bit of a postcode lottery in people’s ability to access these individual drugs, in particular when they are being developed for trial.
We need a fresh initiative. I am sure the Government will commit to doing all they can in the coming period, and I hope that more resources will be applied, but unless we get the structures right, the application of those resources will be as frustrating as it is at the moment. As I think the Minister can understand, there has been an expression of frustration at each of our all-party group’s meetings, because the structures are not implementing what the Government themselves want: the wise investment of resources and a more effective link-up with private sector pharmaceutical companies. We need some form of breakthrough event to enable us to move forward more effectively and more rapidly.
Finally, I pay tribute to the various charities, including the Brain Tumour Charity, that are doing such hard work to raise funds and to give hope and comfort to people as their families go through this appalling experience. I thank them for all the support they have given us in the all-party group.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for sharing her story and for all her endeavours in this House on behalf of her sister and others. I hope she will forgive me for saying that she has a big heart, and she expresses that in this Chamber often. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said he was afraid; I cannot believe he would be afraid of anybody, but I am sure she was not too formidable no matter what the case may be.
For any family to receive the news of a brain tumour is instantly worrying, and we think of all who have lost their lives to this dreadful illness. Just recently we mourned with a dear friend of mine whose daughter went to hospital with a suspected stroke and within two months had gone to eternity with a glioblastoma brain tumour. She gave me an image of a red squirrel in the nearby Mount Stewart estate, run by the National Trust, and that will always have pride of place in my office.
In Northern Ireland, 2,043 brain tumour cases were diagnosed between 2017 and 2021—some 409 cases per year. At the end of 2021, there were almost 5,500 people living with a brain tumour, with the diagnoses occurring between 1997 and 2021. During that period, 53.2% of brain tumour cases were among women—as in the case that I know of and in that raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.
If I was to ask for one thing out of this debate today, it would be for extra money to be made available for research and to find the cures, because that is really what we want. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. In the UK, 16,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour each year, and incidence rates of brain tumours are significantly higher in Northern Ireland and Wales than in other UK countries. Brain tumour cases are projected to rise in Northern Ireland by some 36% by 2035, which is really worrying. The Minister always endeavours to give us the answers we all seek, and I ask her to work alongside the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to see how all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can work together to take on glioblastoma cancer and tumours.
Despite treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, some patients find themselves resistant to therapy and they relapse and unfortunately may face death after some 15 months. Queen’s University Belfast is making giant strides in research and repurposing existing drugs to ascertain if they can make a difference to these dreadful statistics. While it is thankful for the funding given by Brainwaves NI and other charities, the Government need to assist those charities and other groups by making funding available to the highly qualified scientists who could find a cure and have a path to take, but have been precluded from doing so due to the lack of money. The statistics are startling: more children and adults under 40 die of a brain tumour than of any other cancer, yet only 1% of national research spending goes on brain tumour research. More research and more spend could make a great difference; this must be rectified.
The difficulty is that no symptoms are unique to brain tumours. Headaches, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision or weakness of the limbs can be due to other pressure effects within the brain. A tumour can also cause seizures due to infiltrative effects on the brain substance. There are many symptoms, including deafness, visual disturbance, and problems with the sense of smell.
I want to give a wee example. My parliamentary aide had been suffering from a 10-day headache. She is the one who writes all these speeches for me every week—a very busy lady. She booked an eye test after she did some research and asked for a further intensive scan, which she paid for herself. Thankfully in a way, it turned out that her eyes had deteriorated but that the headaches were not due to anything that she had feared. There is a good point to make here: how many young people would not think to do this or would say, “I can’t afford to do that”? How much awareness is there that a headache is not always down to dehydration? How many people understand that an eye test is an essential part of our healthcare? Perhaps the Minister would consider making eye tests free at source for those who work, as well as those on benefits, to increase the number of people having an eye test who need one but just do not think about it.
In conclusion, ever conscious of time, I understand that money is not unlimited and that the Government must make effective use of funding, but when I stood at the funeral service and watched the heartbreak of my friend, I thought that there is nothing more important than stopping that heartbreak in Northern Ireland and across this great United Kingdom. Research is the key and we must find the promising research as a matter of urgency. I hope that the debate today will be a step in the right direction.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate. She is a tireless campaigner on this issue, which is clearly very close to her heart. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for co-sponsoring the debate. Their joint sponsorship demonstrates the cross-party nature of support for tackling this issue; no matter which party we belong to, we can all get behind that.
My constituent, Alex, from Horwich, got in touch with me about his story. With his permission, I would like to share some of that with hon. Members today. Alex’s powerful testimony reminds us just how important it is that we support efforts to improve treatment for those suffering from glioblastoma and brain tumours more broadly. In June 2023, Alex suffered a seizure at home and was initially diagnosed with epilepsy, but he was later diagnosed with a glioblastoma. Despite going through surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, a process that must have been incredibly difficult to bear for his wife, Emma, and children, Joseph and Eloise, the cancer returned.
Alex has recently had his secondary surgery at Salford Royal and told me that, though the teams and lead doctors he has dealt with have been outstanding, the treatment available has hardly changed for 20 years, as colleagues have already noted. I will read some of Alex’s own words, as they speak much more eloquently than I can to the struggles that he has faced. He says:
“The real challenge was knowing what to say to our loved ones, especially our kids. We chose to drip-feed relevant information, allowing life to carry on, even during GCSEs. Whether that’s right or wrong, I don’t know, but we keep going and that’s what matters.”
One in three people in the UK knows someone affected by a brain tumour. It kills more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, but receives just 1% of the national spend on cancer research. Since his diagnosis, Alex has fundraised vigorously for Brain Tumour Research, and recently arranged for Bolton town hall to be lit up in honour of Brain Tumour Awareness Month.
On Alex’s behalf, I praise the amazing work done by brain tumour charities, such as Brain Tumour Research, for all they do in raising awareness and funding research, and the staff at the Christie and Salford hospitals for their outstanding care, despite the constraints around treatment. Those charities clearly cannot do it all on their own, and the Government must support where they can. As well as increased, better-used funding, I would like to see more clinical trials and faster diagnosis and treatment by the NHS. That is vital given the speed with which the illness can take hold and the challenges associated with diagnoses.
Finally, I echo calls by colleagues and the Brain Tumour Charity for a national brain tumour strategy, and I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration. Such a strategy is vital given the current shortfalls in the research landscape that have held back progress to date.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I too thank and commend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing the debate. It has been a pleasure to work with her and we are all in awe of her single-minded relentlessness on this topic, from which we can all learn.
I have a similar story. Two years ago, I received a call from my nephew and my two nieces asking me to come over quickly. I jumped in the car and drove as fast as I could to my sister’s house, where I found her semi-conscious on the floor, which was the start of a journey over the past two years. She was diagnosed with a glioblastoma. She underwent surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. She is somewhere up there in the Gallery now, and she is doing incredibly well. She is an absolute inspiration to everyone who meets her in her raw courage, determination, empathy and joy in the world. We do not know how it goes from here, but she brings home in her thinking how wonderful and beautiful our world is. She has also been a driving force. We have raised £60,000 and counting so far for the Brain Tumour Charity, which does a wonderful job, and she has brought people in left, right and centre who have suffered or are suffering from GBM or have lost loved ones to GBM. She is engaged, thoughtful and determined, and my heart goes out to her.
I will mention the stats. We know that there are 120 types of brain tumours. Some 12,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour every year and—the nasty one—5,300 people die from a brain tumour each year in the UK. In May 2018, the Government announced a research fund of £40 million on the back of the death of Baroness Tessa Jowell to encourage new research into brain tumours, administered through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. On that day, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), said:
“At this agonising time, I hope her family can draw comfort from the fact that her legacy will be lives saved and heartbreak averted for thousands of other families.”
However, three years later, in May 2021, the then Health Secretary reported that just £8.8 million of that £40 million had been allocated for dedicated brain tumour research. Three years after that, in March 2025, under a new Government, spending to date directly on brain tumour research was just £11.3 million. Concerningly, a little bit of text was added after that, which said:
“plus an estimated £31.5 million in infrastructure”.
I have three key questions for the Minister, which I would love some answers to, because more than 5,000 people dying each year is far too many. This has been going on for far too long. We need to do more and fulfil the promises that this House has made.
The three questions are as follows. Will the Minister confirm that the new wording is not an attempt to include the £31.5 million of infrastructure spend in the £40 million headline number, with a view to getting the NIHR and the Government off the hook on their commitment to spend the full £40 million that they have committed to new research into brain cancers? Will the Government commit to allocating and spending the £40 million within a decade, which is already far too long, of their original May 2018 commitment—by May 2028, which is three years from now? That is doable if we put our minds to it, and we need the Government’s help. Will the Government stand by the May 2018 commitment to host an annual global conference to bring together world experts on brain cancer? That has not been done, and we committed to that as a House. Will we stand by that, commit to it and kick off a conference by the end of the year?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I salute the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. Hopefully we can turn her personal tragedy into a national triumph if we work together. She is absolutely correct in saying that individually, certain types of brain tumours are very rare, but collectively they are very common. The simple fact that only 1% of our national cancer research funding goes to them is absolutely unacceptable.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a national health service optometrist. I will speak on that topic, because a simple eye test can detect a brain tumour, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. I have unfortunately—or fortunately, in certain cases, because we have been able to detect them early—been in the position of seeing people who are completely asymptomatic or people coming in with a simple headache having brain tumours detected. That is why I really want to emphasise that the avenue of using eye tests is undervalued and underutilised. They are completely un-invasive, cost efficient and accessible, and they can save so many lives. Is it at all possible for us to have a national awareness campaign as part of a broader body to ensure that eye tests can be linked to brain tumours, so that they can be detected?
John McDonnell
I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal in my constituency, who lost their daughter and have been doing fundraising. One of the most effective things they have been doing is ensuring that at local community events there is a stall that provides information about how to access a diagnosis. That has proved to be incredibly effective, as a range of other professionals have picked up on the information. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal for their creativity.
Shockat Adam
This is about awareness campaigns. People should be aware that 39%—I think—of children unfortunately diagnosed with a brain tumour experience some kind of sight loss or vision changes, and one in three people diagnosed report a problem with their vision that converts into a brain tumour. An eye test cannot detect all brain tumours, but it is a really valuable tool.
Over 112,000 people have signed a petition demanding that brain tumour research is no longer left behind. These are not just signatures; as we have heard from today’s powerful testimonies, they are families, and they are stories of lives cut short and missed chances. We cannot allow that to continue any longer.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this debate. It has been a privilege to sit through such excellent speeches on this very important topic. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s sister Margaret would be very proud of her, and I am sure that my hon. Friend’s sister is proud of him too.
As the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend have outlined, a brain tumour diagnosis can be utterly devastating and life-changing. Some 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with a primary tumour, while many others are diagnosed with a secondary tumour that has spread from elsewhere in their body. Primary tumours are largely unpreventable, and cause the death of more adults and children under 40 than any other type of cancer. As primary brain tumours do not spread around the body like other cancer types, they do not receive the same staging categorisation.
Current NHS programmes for diagnosing cancers earlier do not include brain tumours, as they focus on targets and improvements for catching more cancers in stages 1 and 2. Nearly half of people diagnosed—49%—are found to have a so-called benign tumour, a grade 1 or 2 tumour that grows more slowly. Those tumours are not technically cancerous, so they are not covered by previous cancer plans or initiatives for improving cancer care. However, the treatment and care for patients with a low-grade tumour has long-lasting impacts and can be life-altering.
I would like to mention the experience of my constituent Madi Ruby, who has tirelessly campaigned and fundraised on this issue. She has experienced both a grade 1 and a grade 2 tumour. She first experienced symptoms of a brain tumour in 1995 with numbness in her right arm, and went on to write backwards and develop headaches. She went for a CT scan when that numbness spread to her foot and she was involved in a minor car accident. Only then was she diagnosed with a grade 1 meningioma measuring 6 cm, which was removed—she was only 23 at the time.
Although that surgery was successful, Madi developed partial epilepsy. She was eventually discharged after five years of clear scans, but as we have heard, tumours still impact lives. She has had poor mental health and become depressed, and in 2013, her brain tumour returned. That tumour has also been removed, but she still deals with partial epilepsy, constant headaches and migraines, and suffers daily. She is also an inspirational person; she has bravely spoken out about her depression, trained to be a counsellor, and is now an associate dean responsible for nursing and allied health professionals at Wrexham Glyndŵr University.
I also want to mention my constituent Shaun Burgess, who raised more than £11,000 for the Brain Tumour Charity and the Meningioma Support Group by running 3,000 miles across Shropshire last year. He was raising money after his wife Mo was treated for a non-cancerous tumour, but not everyone diagnosed with a brain tumour gets that second chance; Shaun has lost a friend to a more aggressive brain tumour.
We must end the tragedy of people losing their lives because treatment for brain cancer took too long to start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has outlined, progress on the treatment of brain tumours has not been good enough. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer should be a top priority for any Government, and the UK should be a global leader in cancer research and outcomes. I urge the Minister to listen to the pleas of Members from across the House on that point today.
For so many people, diagnosis and treatment are too difficult to access. My constituency is a typical example. The major hospitals in Shrewsbury and Telford face a number of challenges and regularly have some of the longest waiting times in the NHS for cancer screening and treatment. In December 2024, just 64% of patients were treated within the 62-day period, despite the target being 85%. The average across England was much better, but still poor at 71%.
Not only do too many people live in treatment deserts, but when they are finally offered the treatment they need, it is hard to access. Anyone living in rural North Shropshire would say that. Having waited anxiously for weeks or months for a scan and the result, they then, if the news is bad, have to travel extremely long distances for the treatment they need. Most of North Shropshire is an hour and a quarter away from a radiotherapy centre on public transport. For patients with brain tumours, public transport is fundamental if they can no longer drive. One of my constituents has faced exactly that problem, having had their driving licence suspended by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency after being diagnosed with a tumour. Apparently that could be remedied if his consultant provided a BT1 form, but he has not been able to get through to the doctor. In the meantime, he is trapped without freedom in a constituency with some of the worst public transport in the country.
Ongoing funding issues, which we know are a huge challenge for the Government, continue to afflict brain tumour patients in a number of ways. Another constituent of mine told me their experience after being referred to a care navigator following their diagnosis. The care navigator’s job is to contact patients on a monthly basis, seeing whether they have any problems and concerns and guiding them through an experience that is extremely traumatic. However, the care navigator position has now been cut, and my constituent has been left in the dark, with growing anxiety and no one to speak to. No one should be going without treatment because there is not enough equipment, and no one should suffer because there are not enough staff to support them.
What would Liberal Democrats do? We would recruit more cancer nurses, so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. For brain tumours, we would like to see an improvement in diagnosis, the care people receive and the range of treatment options available. Diagnosis targets need to reflect the fact that brain cancer does not occur in stages in the way that other cancers do—otherwise, we risk brain tumours falling through the cracks of NHS targets and objectives. Low-grade brain tumours, such as that suffered by Madi, need renewed attention, including in the upcoming cancer plan, which we look forward to seeing.
The Liberal Democrats have committed to boosting cancer survival rates more generally by passing a cancer survival research Act, which would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into the cancers with the lowest survival rates, such as brain tumours. We would halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity and ensuring that every patient starts their treatment for cancer within that 62-day urgent referral target. We would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. Measures such as Margaret’s law, which the hon. Members who secured this debate have pressed for, would be an important step in the right direction to improve research in glioblastoma in particular, and I urge the Minister to consider that too.
Do the Government have any future plans for allocating support to research into vaccine treatment for brain tumours, which has reportedly shown remarkable progress against glioblastoma in recent studies? Too many patients with brain tumours have been let down by previous Governments over many years, and I hope that this Government will step up and make brain tumours, cancer and NHS care their No. 1 priority.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I start with a personal apology to my constituents on this VE Day. While I cannot stand there in person among those marking our victory in remembrance in Hinckley and Bosworth in north-west Leicestershire, I am carrying out the very duty that people gave their lives to protect. The sacrifice of those who fought in world war two ensures that the work of this Parliament and democracy itself endures. Their courage lives in every free debate, every vote cast, and every moment we serve the public good. That should never be forgotten or taken for granted. I am therefore privileged to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to such an important topic that resonates with so many—brain tumours.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this debate. I was also pleased to hear this important issue raised only yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), talking about his constituent’s remarkable and inspirational story about overcoming glioblastoma. Although the Prime Minister did not respond with details about brain tumours specifically, these are important opportunities to raise and debate this topic while telling the human stories, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister today.
One such story is an example from my own constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, involving Katherine and Simon Tansey and their daughter Isla. I have told this story in the House in years past, but it is so poignant that I am not shy about telling it again. We can choose to be affected by the world or we can choose to affect the world, and my constituent Isla chose the latter. In August 2017, seven-year-old Isla Tansey woke up unable to walk. After many horrible treatments, surgery and radiotherapy, she was diagnosed with DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—in January 2018. Isla’s mum described the terminal illness as the most traumatic and heartbreaking experience for a family to go through.
Sadly, Isla passed away in July 2018, but not before inspiring thousands around the world with her positivity and creativity through her hobby: painting stones and pebbles. Isla asked others to join her by painting their own stones with any design, but she asked them to include the hashtag #islastones and the words “photo.post.rehide”, and then to send pictures to a dedicated Facebook page for her to see. They were subsequently to leave the stones somewhere hidden so that when they were found, they could spread a little bit of the joy that Isla had given them.
Isla’s mother Katherine hoped that one day a child might find the stones, learn about Isla’s story and become a researcher in childhood cancer. Thousands of people took part, and more than 149 countries were involved. Although Isla could no longer walk, she loved to see where all the stones ended up and where they would travel next. This included the Taj Mahal, New Zealand, Disneyland and America, with one stone reaching Antarctica. Through the stones and the people who made them, hid them and posted their photos, Isla travelled the world.
The hashtag #islastones grew to a community of over 65,000 members from all across the world. In 2019, a year on from Isla’s passing, a world record was set at the Celebration of Smiles event in Hinkley for the largest display of painted stones, with 8,542—all in remembrance of Isla. Off the back of that, Simon and Katherine set up the Islastones Foundation to raise research grants, awareness and smiles to help fight childhood cancer. They were awarded the Points of Light award from the then Prime Minister in 2023.
Why does this matter? We have all heard the statistics in this debate, but these are the real stories behind the cases, and our constituents all rightly ask for real understanding, for listening and for something to change. I am reminded of the quote:
“Your life is a message to the world. Make sure it is inspiring.”
Isla’s message was truly inspiring, and I hope the Government’s message on cancer and brain tumours will be the same.
I turn to the substance of the debate. It is clear today that Members are asking for greater priority to be given to accelerating research into brain tumours and treatments. The motion partly focuses on the £40 million of funding provided by the previous Government for research into brain tumours, and I understand the frustration of MPs from across the House at the speed of allocations to projects since 2018.
At this point, I must pay tribute to the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission for its work with the NIHR. This collaboration has led to the NIHR issuing funding calls for researchers to evaluate treatments for brain tumours and to expand the network of trials for brain tumours, including the national brain tumour consortium. Looking over the debates, I noticed that the Minister said on Second Reading of the Rare Cancers Bill:
“In the five years since 2018-19, the NIHR has invested £11.3 million directly in brain cancer, with a further £31.5 million to enable brain tumour research in 227 studies involving 8,500 people. The commitment remains in place. I can confirm that there is no upper limit on that funding. We are exploring additional research policy options to encourage more clinical trials in early phase research and the development of medical devices and diagnostics.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1434.]
That is of course encouraging, but campaigners want to see projects up and running as soon as possible. To that end, would the Minister consider the calls from Brain Tumour Research to create a set of dedicated funding streams for early-career researchers, improved access to clinical trials and better integration of brain tumours in cutting-edge cancer initiatives, especially given the proposed abolition of NHS England?
It is that deep desire to get research moving into potential new treatments that led to the Rare Cancers Bill, proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), was pleased to support the legislation when it was introduced in March. I was glad to note that the Bill received Government support, and it was endorsed by the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research and other patient groups. I welcome the Bill’s intention to encourage industry to concentrate more research on treatments for rare and less common cancers, including brain tumours, particularly through the review of the orphan drug regulations. However, it is vital that there is alignment with the national cancer plan, which is likely to set the direction of cancer policies for the next five to 10 years. Can the Minister confirm whether the key measures in the Bill will be included in the upcoming national cancer plan?
As well as accelerating research into brain tumours, we must take steps to increase participation among those personally affected. One of the aims of the Rare Cancers Bill is to get more patients into clinical trials for rare cancers, including brain tumours. It is sobering that the Brain Tumour Charity’s survey found that only 12% of respondents have participated in a clinical trial. We also know from the Institute of Cancer Research that brain tumour clinical trials have the lowest recruitment of any cancer type. This is why the last Government asked Lord O’Shaughnessy to review the barriers to commercial clinical trials in the aftermath of the covid pandemic. I know that the Government have stated that they are committed to implementing the recommendations of the O’Shaughnessy review, but can the Minister provide further details on what progress has been made to date?
On a side note—but a related one—at a recent VE Day celebration in Donisthorpe I met a constituent who raised with me the issue of the acquired brain injury strategy. That cross-party initiative has been championed by the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is now a Labour Minister. Somewhat fortuitously, I was able to tell my constituent that I was taking part in a debate on brain tumours today. She and the likes of Headway and the Child Brain Injury Trust are keen to ensure that they are able to support people through the changes that the Government are pushing through on personal independence payments and disability support, so would the Minister consider reviewing or updating the acquired brain injury strategy in the light of these changes?
Finally, I want to end on a positive note. The discussions between the MHRA and Northwest Biotherapeutics are providing hope that people living with new or recurrent glioblastoma may have access to a new treatment, DCVax-L, which could make a real difference in prolonging their survival from this terrible disease. It is important that we build on these developments, and take steps to reduce barriers to research in brain tumours and access to new treatments as they develop. After all, as one brain tumour survivor said:
“Hope is the anchor that kept me steady through the storm of my diagnosis”.
I hope that this very debate will bring hope to those suffering and their families, and will demonstrate that the Government are listening and working for better outcomes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this vitally important debate. They have both been powerful voices in this place for more research, greater care and better treatments for patients with brain tumours. My hon. Friend spoke so powerfully, as always, and in the name of her sister Margaret. I thank the hon. Member for Witney for sharing his sister’s story. I commend her for her fundraising activity and wish her the very best. The hon. Member asked three very clear questions, which I hope my response will cover.
I also thank other Members who made powerful contributions in what has been a very constructive debate. I hope my responses will answer their queries, but if not, I will endeavour to write to all Members following this debate about any gaps that are left. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about disparity of drug access. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked for zest, and spoke about the requirement for it. He expressed the frustrations of the APPG and others at the speed at which we are able to make progress. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the importance of research, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about clinical trials. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) brought his expertise on optometry to bear, and spoke about how useful an eye test can be. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, talked about low-grade tumours. I commend her constituents, whom she spoke about, for their work.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for sharing the story of Isla’s stones. What a powerful metaphor and a powerful remembrance. He also spoke about the acquired brain injury strategy. My remarks will focus on brain tumours, but I can confirm that the ABI strategy remains in play and in development. I will update the House on that as soon as possible. First, I pay tribute to some fantastic charities for their advocacy—the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research, Cancer Research UK and Tom’s Trust, to name just a few.
Innovative research is vital in our fight against this devastating disease if we are to offer people the most cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care. The Department of Health and Social Care, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, invests over £1.6 billion per year in research. In the past financial year alone, it invested over £130 million specifically in cancer research. That has enabled 261 brain tumour studies to happen in the NHS, involving 11,400 people in potentially life-changing research over the past six years. Since 2018, the NIHR has directly invested almost £12 million in brain tumour research projects; it has also spent around £37.5 million on wider infrastructure investments in facilities, services and the research workforce, making research possible. In addition, over five years, between 2020 and 2024, the Medical Research Council committed more than £18.5 million to brain tumour research.
Our investments are having an impact. NIHR-funded research has shown that a new targeted drug combination treatment can give better outcomes for one of the most common types of paediatric brain cancer, but of course there is still so much more to do. Too little is known about how to prevent, diagnose and manage brain tumours, and they remain one of the hardest cancers to treat and a challenging area for research. That is why we are committed to furthering our investment in brain cancer research and have already taken some steps to stimulate scientific progress. I would like to offer the House just three examples from the past year.
First, in September, the NIHR announced a new package of funding opportunities for brain cancer research for both adults and children. Secondly, in December, the NIHR established a new national brain tumour research consortium. The consortium brings together research from a range of disciplines and institutions to drive faster scientific advancements in how we prevent, detect, manage and treat brain cancer. This complements the NIHR’s dedicated funding call on research into wraparound care, rehabilitation and quality of life for patients with brain tumours. It has received a high volume of applications, and those applications are under consideration by an independent expert peer review panel.
Thirdly, the Department is working actively as a member of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to fully support the vision of bringing the best care to all brain tumour patients in the UK. Together, we will work with the brain tumour community to accelerate research and bring new insights to the field. This summer, the mission will launch the Tessa Jowell allied health professional research fellowship to train early-career health professionals in conducting vital research on how we improve patients’ quality of life.
The commitment to spend at least £40 million on brain cancer remains in place. The limiting factor has not been restrictions on funding, or funds being spent elsewhere, and every research proposal assessed as being fundable has been funded. My Department is now focusing on how we grow the scientific community working on brain cancer to get more research funded. We are committed to increasing spending on brain cancer research, and the £40 million target is not a funding ceiling—it will not end there. However, it is important that only high-quality applications be funded, so that public funds are invested well and produce impactful and usable research evidence. We will continue to work hand in glove with partners who fund research on new scientific discoveries, such as Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and brain tumour charities. We stand ready to translate these much-needed discoveries as quickly as possible into new treatments for patients via the NIHR.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden raised the issue of partnerships with industry to develop treatments, and I can confirm that we are committed to working with the pharmaceutical industry and others with the common aim of creating a faster, more efficient, more accessible and innovative clinical treatment delivery system. We expect these efforts to attract more commercial investment in clinical research, and to yield a broad and diverse portfolio of clinical trials in the UK, so that we can provide innovative treatment options for patients, including those with glioblastoma. The new brain tumour research consortium, to which I have referred, will bring together people to work on that, and will work to detect, manage and treat rarer and less survivable cancers in children and adults.
Clinical trials are a crucial part of cancer research. They are the key to advanced medical progress, improved patient outcomes and more hope for the future. Britain is already one of the best destinations in the world for clinical trials, but we want to go further. On 7 April, the Prime Minister announced action to accelerate the set-up and delivery of clinical trials; the time taken to set up studies will be cut to 150 days by March next year, down from 250 days, according to the latest data, which was collected in 2022.
The Department of Health and Social Care is committed to being a world-leading destination for clinical trials. Work is ongoing to streamline and reform the set-up and delivery of clinical trials through digitalisation, and by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. That is driving a “right research, right setting” initiative, and we are moving from reactive to proactive portfolio management, including by supporting the workforce and continuing to embed a research and innovation culture across the health and social care system.
The Government also support the private Member’s Bill on rare cancers, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). The Bill will make it easier for clinical trials on rare cancers to take place in England by ensuring that the patient population can be easily contacted.
This Government are committed to backing innovative clinical research ecosystems in the UK, so that British patients can be among the first to benefit. We will bust bureaucracy, fast-track clinical trials and give patients improved access to cutting-edge treatments and technologies, including for brain tumours. “Be Part of Research” is our landmark service, allowing people from all walks of life across the UK to find and participate in research relevant to them, which could transform lives. I urge everybody watching at home to sign up to “Be Part of Research” and to get involved.
We have spoken about medicines repurposing, whereby medicines approved for a particular condition are used in new ways to treat different conditions. Repurposing drugs may have particular value for rare cancers, such as brain cancers, for which drug development has been limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden noted, NHS England has suspended its medicines repurposing programme, but not because it is unimportant; it has shown that opportunities to use existing medicines in new ways can be delivered without the support of a formal repurposing programme, including, for example, through local off-label prescribing. This creates opportunities for NIHR and other funders to support proposals for clinical trials that use repurposed drugs for rare cancers. We will help researchers work with industry and clinicians to strengthen the evidence base for new drugs, and for new uses of drugs, so that we can find out how patients can best be helped.
Helen Morgan
How well will that work be co-ordinated if it is done on a local, sporadic basis, and how will the repurposing of drugs be co-ordinated centrally if NHS England is no longer undertaking that work?
Ashley Dalton
NHS England has found that creating that environment does not necessarily provide new and better ways of repurposing drugs, and that can be done far more efficiently and far less bureaucratically by using local off-label prescribing. We are looking at how we can incentivise researchers and clinical trials to explore repurposing drugs.
We are determined to make the NIHR and other funders grasp opportunities to support those proposals. We will help researchers work with industry and clinicians to strengthen the evidence base for new drugs.
The NHS is working hard to diagnose and treat cancers on time. There is more to do on early diagnosis and faster treatment, in order to improve patient experience and survival. The NHS is focused on improving diagnostic waiting times, and on providing MRI, CT and other tests to reduce cancer waits, because, as Lord Darzi’s investigation has shown, we face significant challenges if we are to bring this country’s cancer survival rates back up to the standard of the best in the world. We know that the best way to improve survival for those with brain tumours, and with all cancers, is to diagnose patients early and treat them quickly.
In our first six months, 80,000 more patients received a diagnosis or an all-clear within 28 days than did in the previous year, thanks to investment in cutting NHS waiting lists. In March, more than 80% of patients in England referred for cancer had it ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days—it is the first time that target has been met in years—but we must go further, and we will. Our reforms to cancer care will see more than 100,000 people diagnosed faster, and thousands more starting treatment within two months across the NHS.
There is no single solution to this complex challenge. That is why my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has been clear that there will be a national cancer plan published later this year. This plan will ensure that rarer cancers, including brain cancers, will not be left behind. It is my absolute privilege, as a person with cancer, to be driving that cancer plan. I am delighted that we have so far received more than 11,000 representations as part of the call for evidence. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that her contributions and all others will be taken seriously.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also talked about low-grade cancers. There is a difference between staging and grading, and it is important that we are clear about that. Low-grade brain tumours are considered non-cancerous, and they grow more slowly and are less likely to spread, but although low-grade brain tumours are generally non-cancerous, they can have similar serious symptoms, and require surgery or radiotherapy to treat them. The Government are investing in new life-saving and life-improving research to support people diagnosed with those cancers.
In closing, for those affected by this devastating disease, every discovery, every treatment and every moment matters. We recognise that more needs to be done to stimulate high-quality, high-impact research into brain tumours. Through our targeted package of support, that is what we will do. We completely understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least because three Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are cancer survivors. We know how terrifying it is to receive a diagnosis. We have sat in waiting rooms, hoping for good news and fearing the worst—and we have heard the worst. We have had those difficult conversations with our loved ones and seen the devastating impact on their lives. That is why we are committed to making a real difference for patients with brain cancer. We will leave no stone unturned until they get the first-class care that they deserve. I look forward to further discussing how we can achieve this when I meet members of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours next week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh to wind up.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind words about Margaret. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I appreciate that they have been taken from their constituencies, where there will be great celebrations for the 80th anniversary of VE Day.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate. I suggested to the Committee that I did not want last Thursday because it was polling day, so when I was offered 8 May, I did not really feel that I could refuse. I say to the Minister, the shadow Ministers and all hon. Members that if we rely on the system as it is, there will be no progress. The only way to bring about progress is to intervene and to challenge. To that end, I am delighted to say that in July we will be launching the first drug trial in Margaret’s memory, to try immunotherapy on people with glioblastoma. We will be doing that only on one site, at UCL and UCLH. That is because the structure of drug trials in the NHS continues to be so difficult—this was identified by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his report—that going to more sites would take years. People diagnosed with this condition have not got years, so we all have to intervene.
Most Ministers in the previous Government and those in this Government have been incredibly well organised and well motivated. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, which has made our trial possible at this speed, but unless we personally get involved, no great speeches, wishing or hoping will make a change. The system does not want change. We have to enforce change.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that Brain Tumour Awareness Month took place in March; further notes that there has been no progress in NHS treatment of brain tumours in 20 years and that they are the biggest cancer killer of people under the age of 40; calls on the Government to demand that the National Institute for Health and Care Research take action to spend the £40 million provided by the Government for brain tumour research in 2018 for innovative and meaningful drug trials, following the death of the late Baroness Tessa Jowell; and further calls on the Government to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to undertake research into the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours and to require the NHS repurposing service to consider the repurposing of drugs for brain tumours.
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to ask this, but we need to understand what is happening about the trade negotiations and the statement that may be coming. I ask because three of us here—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) and I—have planes to catch. I understand that others in the Chamber have made travel arrangements as well. If the statement is not happening, let us go.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While Members are aware that a statement is expected on trade negotiations, I have no further information on the timing. His comments are now on the record. I suspend the House until further notice. The Annunciator will give further information, and bells will be rung before the House resumes.
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It had been the intention of the Government to make a statement to the House this afternoon immediately following the scheduled press conference by the US President and the words of our own Prime Minister. Both of those sets of remarks were delayed, with the result that, at this relatively late hour, the Government would now suggest respectfully to you that it would be more courteous to the House to be able to provide all Members with the opportunity for a full statement on Monday. If that does not—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Government have to come forward with a statement. They converted an urgent question to a statement this morning, so a statement has to be made. What the Minister says cannot be done on a point of order, as that would be unfair. I understand that people were going around telling Members to go home as there would be no statement, because Downing Street had decided that. We do not do business like this: it is totally wrong. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I am sure he would like to update the House on the position now, and I would of course expect the details to come on Monday.
Mr Alexander
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I of course defer to your judgment and will issue the statement—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not my judgment; these are the rules of the House. An urgent question was put in, and it was converted by the Government into a statement, so it is for the Government now to come forward with the statement.
Trade Negotiations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me make the statement, as requested.
Within the last couple of hours, a deal has been announced by the Prime Minister and President Trump respectively. I therefore welcome the opportunity to update the House on the terms of the agreement that has just been reached. Back in February, I stood before the House and said:
“What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 182.]
It is this approach, which the Government have taken, that has brought us to the front of the queue today. Indeed, no other country has been able to secure an exemption from the tariffs imposed by the United States until today.
In March, the United States Government announced tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos. This was followed by an announcement of a global tariff, with the UK on the lowest rate of 10%. Throughout this period, the UK Government have been engaged in an intensive and continued dialogue with the Government of the United States to advance the UK’s national interest in this challenging and changing global trading environment. The deal we have agreed is the first step in delivering on the commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and President Trump in February to reach an economic deal in our respective national interests.
First and foremost, the deal will protect UK jobs, while laying the groundwork for increased transatlantic trade and investment. As the Prime Minister has commented within the last hour,
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
To that end, I can inform the House that the deal we have secured secures reductions to the 25% tariffs imposed by the United States on the UK car industry. UK exports to the US will face a lower tariff of 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles. That is positive news for iconic British luxury brands such as Aston Martin, Bentley and McLaren, but it is also good news for our country’s largest vehicle manufacturer, Jaguar Land Rover, which employs 34,000 employees directly in the UK, with 135,000 further jobs in its wider supply chain. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders pointed out, the US is Britain’s second largest car export market. A deal like this was desperately needed to support jobs and economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
Furthermore, the deal secures the removal of the new tariffs the US imposed on steel and aluminium in March, through duty-free quotas. It reinforces our commitment to the steel industry, following our swift action last month to protect British Steel and its 2,500 employees.
Turning next to agriculture, for the first time ever, the deal will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market. Currently only a few other countries, such as Australia, enjoy such access. This is a major opportunity for British farmers to increase their exports to the world’s largest consumer market, helping them to grow their businesses. Let me be clear that the import of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high animal welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—standards.
On economic security, the deal will ensure co-operation on non-market policies from third countries, investment security and export controls. With the United States Government, we will continue to advance the UK’s national interest in key sectors where discussions continue, such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, copper, lumber and film production. We will seek the best possible deal and outcome for these vital parts of our economy, and those working on our critical infrastructure. We have also committed to further negotiations on tariff reductions to enhance the UK-US trading relationship. Without this Government’s swift action, the economic impact of US tariffs would, candidly, have been extremely severe.
Following agreement on the outline of the deal today, there will now be a process of formal negotiations with the US on a binding legal framework. The negotiations aim to deliver an ambitious set of outcomes in areas such as digital trade, tackling non-tariff barriers, agreeing mutual recognition agreements for industrial goods and an agreement on domestic services regulation, collaborating on economic security, and upholding standards in areas such as intellectual property and labour practices.
I can, of course, confirm to the House that hon. Members will have the chance to scrutinise the deal we agree with the United States Government, as well as legislation implementing the deal. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade have told the House, we are not seeking to change existing statutory scrutiny processes. It is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to make its voice heard on this important set of issues.
I am pleased to confirm that the Secretary of State yesterday briefed the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on progress in the negotiations. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement.
As a Government, we are grateful to businesses across the United Kingdom for their extensive and continued engagement in recent weeks, and look forward to continuing that engagement through the remaining negotiations.
I would also like to place on record the Government’s gratitude for the work of officials here in London and in Washington for their efforts in securing the first stage of this agreement today.
It will have escaped nobody’s attention in this House that this agreement with the United States has been reached on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. That victory was secured not simply by the heroism and courage of the British armed forces, but by strong transatlantic alliances that have served us well over the eight subsequent decades. In the coming years, the Government of the United Kingdom will continue to work to secure international agreements that uphold our national interests.
For all those reasons, I commend the statement to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you for ensuring that the House had the opportunity to hear this statement today, Mr Speaker.
Free trade betters us all. It has lifted billions from poverty and has made us the country we are today, and the country that had the ability to join the fight for Europe’s freedom 80 years ago. Unfortunately, this is not the historic free trade deal we were promised. Any reduction in tariffs is welcome, but British businesses are still facing higher tariffs now than they did in February. This is not the deal we were promised, and the Government still have much work to do.
Let us be crystal clear: it is our freedom to make our own trade policy that made even today’s deal possible. I hope the Government are now converted to our cause, and regret the 48 times they tried to take us back into the European Union. As the Government limber up for their surrender summit later this month, I ask the Minister to rule out today—once and for all—any form of dynamic alignment.
We are the only party whose position on trade with the United States has been consistent. When the Conservatives published the opportunities for a deal in 2020, the now Prime Minister said he would never countenance an agreement, the now Education Secretary called it foolish, and the now Energy Secretary said it was a spectre hanging over us.
The Conservatives do welcome the news of a reduction in selected tariffs on things like automotive exports and steel today. Any reduction is better than no reduction; jobs and investments were at risk, and all mitigation is to be welcomed. However, if I have understood the Minister correctly, we are still not back to the position as it was at the beginning of February. Perhaps he can clarify that British goods will still be more expensive in the US than they were before—for all the talk of the special relationship, that puts us in the same category as countries like Burundi and Bhutan.
More than what is in this deal today is what is not. From the little the Government have shared, it is clear that it does not go anywhere near far enough. It is a Diet Coke deal—not the real thing. It is not the comprehensive free trade agreement that a true plan for growth requires. What about the film and television industry, which was being threatened earlier this week with a 100% tariff? Can the Minister assure us now that there will be no such imposition?
What is the price of this deal? Will the Minister set out clearly to the House the trade-offs that have been made? I note with concern that two days on, we have still not had sight of the detail of the UK-India trade deal. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see the full detail of both deals? How does this deal defend our beef, lamb, pork and poultry farmers, with not just words, but actions? Does it protect the special status of Northern Ireland, and does it cover the British overseas territories?
In the meantime, while businesses continue to suffer and struggle with elevated US tariffs and as they face quotas and uncertainty, will the Minister finally take steps with his colleagues to ease the burden his Government chose to impose on them? Will he announce a pause of the devastating jobs tax until a full trade agreement can be concluded and stop the surge in business rates so many businesses are facing, and will he finally shelve the unemployment Bill that is already seeing British businesses cutting jobs and choking under 300 pages of incoming red tape? Lastly, will he ask the Prime Minister to sack his Energy Secretary and finally produce a real policy to cut energy prices to globally competitive levels?
If the Government are serious about helping businesses, now is the time. What we see is that once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.
Mr Alexander
Where to begin, Mr Speaker? As I sought to reflect in my statement, and as the Prime Minister remarked only a few minutes ago,
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
It is significant that two former Conservative Prime Ministers —the former Members for Henley and for Maidenhead, as I recollect—sought and failed to deliver a US trade deal, in the same way that the former Government failed to deliver a deal with India. Important though it is to hear the views of the Opposition about trade deals that were not done, I think it is also important to hear from the Government about trade deals that have actually been done.
I am grateful, none the less, that the shadow Secretary of State found it in himself to welcome the tariff reductions that have been achieved. I think there will be relief at JLR in particular this evening that the calm, cool-headed approach taken by the Prime Minister and the negotiators has yielded a significant reduction of tariffs to a critical supply chain and a critical set of British exporters.
On Brexit, I respectfully say that this House has debated Brexit innumerable times over the years since 2016. I simply observe that we as a Government are more interested in new markets than in old arguments, and that there have been plenty of opportunities to rehearse those old arguments. I can also assure the House that, as we look ahead to the first EU-UK summit on 19 May, having delivered deals with India and the United States, we are now looking to reset that relationship with our friends, neighbours and partners in the EU, not least because three of our five largest trading partners are actually members of the European Union.
On the specific points about the film industry, we continue to negotiate on the UK’s behalf—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems to suggest that we can unilaterally declare the policy of the United States. Negotiations involve two parties. That is a lesson that the Conservatives could have learned when they failed to secure a US trade deal in the past. It is by listening and working together with our partners in the United States that we have been able to make progress today. As the Prime Minister said:
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
There is further work to be done, and we fully intend to take that work forward.
On agriculture, I think it is important to say that the red line that we maintain consistently in relation to SPS measures has been protected. I am grateful to have the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the Front Bench with me. We have maintained those critical animal welfare standards. All of the speculation in relation to chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef has turned out to be unfounded.
It is important to recognise what was agreed today. Let me be clear to the House: this agreement will provide the United States with an initial tariff rate quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, increasing by 1,000 tonnes per year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes. Let me put that in context for the House and for those on the Conservative Front Bench. The previous Government agreed under the UK-Australia FTA to a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year, which incrementally increases to—wait for it—110,000 tonnes per year, and ultimately becomes unlimited, subject to the safeguard regime. A sense of balance, proportion and understanding is required when discussing not only the safeguards that have been maintained and protected by the British Government, but the deal that has been struck in relation to beef. We need to keep the market access granted to the United States in the context of the wider economic benefits that this deal has secured for the United Kingdom.
On the rather diminishing political points that the shadow Secretary of State sought to make in relation to domestic legislation, I can assure him that the domestic legislation and the programme of the British Government remain unchanged as a consequence of today’s landmark deal. As far as I am aware, that is also the case in relation to the membership of the Cabinet. I am very relieved to say that it is the Prime Minister who is in charge of choosing members of the Cabinet, not the Conservative party, although the shadow Secretary of State does have a distinguished record of service alongside Liz Truss in a previous Government.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for helping to ensure that this moment was possible. Let me add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington, Lord Mandelson, for getting this deal done. It would appear tonight that a small, common-sense retreat on duties and agriculture have unlocked a major reprieve for tens of thousands of jobs in our car and steel industry.
Will the Minister clarify for us tonight when those tariff reductions will kick in? Will he confirm that there is nothing in this bargain that compromises our ability to strike the boldest of resets with the European Union? It would be a mistake to strengthen transatlantic relationships and then short-change cross-channel possibilities. Can the Minister confirm that he will facilitate a debate in this House, if not a vote on the treaty?
On Tuesday, I will recommend to the Select Committee that we commence a full inquiry into this treaty, so that we can report back to the House, but a vote would help us understand who stands where in standing up and protecting British jobs.
Mr Alexander
Let me begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in Jaguar Land Rover and the wider west midlands economy and to the diligent and demanding work he does on the Business and Trade Committee, which makes a major contribution to not only trade policy but business policy here in the United Kingdom.
To clarify the point my right hon. Friend made on the auto industry, the UK exports around 100,000 cars a year to the United States, and this quota will ensure that most manufacturers now pay the preferential rate. The agreement has removed the 25% tariff that the US applied to UK cars on 2 April. The agreement has been welcomed by the UK auto industry in the last couple of hours, including by Jaguar Land Rover, which is the largest exporter to the US. We are committed to continuing to support the automotive industry, which is a point my right hon. Friend has made powerfully in recent days.
On his second point, I can assure my right hon. Friend that notwithstanding the significant progress we have made in relation to the United States—as I said, jobs saved but job not yet done—a great deal of work is continuing on the UK-EU summit that is due to take place on 19 May. He is right to recognise the importance of twin-tracking our approach, as it were, by recognising the salience and significance of the United States as the country that is comfortably our largest single trading partner while recognising the European Union as our largest trading bloc, which covers about 46% of our trade.
Turning to the economic security aspects of the deal, I pay particular tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, as I know this issue has been of great interest to the Business and Trade Committee. I think he will take a lot of encouragement from what emerges in the agreement, specifically in relation to export controls and investment security. One might almost think that the negotiators had been reading his Substack.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Sadly, the world has changed dramatically in the few months since Donald Trump took office in the White House. We need to reflect on the shared values we have with key countries across the world. We need to look to Canada and stand up to Trump as it has done, and we need to make sure that we build economic relationships with countries such as Canada, Australia and the countries in the European Union—all countries that share our values.
I am pleased that the Minister spoke of scrutiny, because we must ensure that there is scrutiny. We need a vote in this House on these proposals. We need to protect the NHS and ensure that we are not selling our farmers down the river. We must also ensure that there are no cuts to taxes on high-tech industries, which the US may be pushing for. Will the Minister address the matter of a vote in this House? That would be extremely helpful. Donald Trump tends to be a weathervane, and he could come back for more. I also feel for our pharmaceutical industry, so what assurances can the Minister give them?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the case he makes for seeing trade as not simply a bilateral issue but a multilateral issue, I think there is a broad consensus across the House. As well as the work we have taken forward in relation to the United States today, we continue to work with friends and partners in a range of different fora, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and the European Union.
On his specific question about scrutiny of trade within this House, I echo the confirmation that the Prime Minister gave in the Commons only a few days ago that we are not anticipating any change to the process of scrutiny for trade matters in the House.
On the two substantive political points, first, it is worth the House recognising that there is no change to the United Kingdom’s digital services tax as a consequence of the agreement reached today. Secondly, I know that there has been widespread concern not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches but right across the House about measures to tackle the evil of online harm, but I can confirm again there has been no change as a consequence of the agreement reached with the United States.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Minister for coming forward with his statement, but the Table Office has not received a copy of it. I am wondering where it is and when we will see copies of it. Can it be handed in so we can get it printed for Members?
Let us move on to Dame Meg Hillier.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the team at the Department as well as our team of officials under Lord Mandelson in Washington. This is a major step forward in a short time. Given how long trade agreements normally take, this is an impressive step.
However, as has been mentioned, we know that President Trump has made rattling sounds about tariffs on the film industry. The creatives and technical businesses in my constituency who contribute to our film industry are obviously nervous about that. Will the Minister reassure us that he is putting his shoulder to the wheel on this issue and not resting on his laurels on the triumphs achieved so far?
Mr Alexander
Mr Speaker, on your point, I apologise again for the statement not being available. As was clear from my initial remarks, there was some confusion within Government as to the best way to proceed, but I hope that through my officials we will provide it to you as a matter of immediacy.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just so that we completely understand, the Government decided they were making a statement, so there was no possibility of anything else. The House was suspended and had to resume; we could not leave it in limbo forever. The point was that there was a statement coming. Thankfully, the Minister made a statement. Hopefully, we can get copies of the statement to everyone. I was bothered about us being in danger of sending people home, saying that there was to be no statement. That was never, ever the case. I am disappointed that Members were advised to leave the building 30 minutes ago on the claim that there was to be no statement.
Mr Alexander
Mr Speaker, the responsibility was ours, and for that I apologise. I hope that through my officials we will be able to furnish the House with the statement that is requested.
In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, I assure her that it is not my personal style or the departmental habit to rest on laurels. It will not have passed her notice that it has been a somewhat busy few months in relation to trade policy, not least given the historic changes in the global trading environment we are experiencing on a daily basis. Notwithstanding that turbulence and the challenges in relation to trade policy, it is a matter of quiet satisfaction that we were able to get the India deal over the line earlier this week. Through that process of quiet, engaged, diligent diplomacy and a great deal of hard work by officials, negotiators and others, we have been able to secure this agreement today. But I assure her that the work goes on.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the Trumpian philosophy that is “The Art of the Deal”, you bully your opponents and then, two months later, withdraw some of the threats, and they kneel down in adoration while they are reduced to where they were before. That is where we are.
We are celebrating the end of the second world war. Before the second world war, people could walk from Lincoln to Grimsby across derelict farms. I want a real assurance from the Minister that he will protect our beef farmers, because this is the start of an attack by America on our beef farmers.
Mr Alexander
As so often in the past, the Government will always act in the national interest in protecting Britain’s farmers and our food security. I would rehearse the numbers that I shared. If the right hon. Member is concerned about the volume of access to the UK market, I respectfully suggest that that might be a question for him to direct to his Conservative Front Benchers. Under the UK-Australia free trade agreement, a beef tariff quota of 35,000 tonnes a year was agreed, which increased to 110,000 tonnes after 10 years. In contrast, what has been agreed with the United States today will provide it with an initial tariff quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, rising by 1,000 tonnes a year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes.
In relation to the right hon. Member’s observations on “The Art of the Deal”—there is a great deal of commentary on that in pretty much every newspaper at the moment—my compass tends to be “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, rather than “The Art of the Deal.” Sun Tzu, as the right hon. Member, as a learned and wise individual, will be aware, said:
“Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.”
I observe that in the eight years since Brexit, the previous Government did not publish a trade strategy.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Like buses, we wait ages—years—for a trade deal with a major global partner, and then two come along at once, within a week. It is a major vote of confidence for the position of Great Britain on the global stage. With a bit of déjà vu, I commend again the Minister, the Labour Government and in particular the Prime Minister for the calm and collected manner in which they have consolidated this agreement when, by the way, others failed for years. While markets are up and tariffs are significantly down because of the announcement of this agreement, will the Minister confirm how this UK-US trade deal will benefit my Slough constituents and lead to economic growth and jobs?
Mr Alexander
As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I am always nervous as to whether buses turn up or not, but I appreciate the analogy.
It has been a busy week for the Government and for the Department for Business and Trade, but it is right to recognise that, by happy coincidence, we have seen both the India and US deals agreed within a couple of days. However, those couple of days were preceded by many months of quiet work and diplomacy, and that is why my hon. Friend is entirely right to recognise the Prime Minister’s personal contribution to the agreements, with Prime Minister Modi and now with President Trump.
After the clown show that we had witnessed in recent years and the cavalcade of chaos that we saw under previous Governments, when I saw that image of the Prime Minister sitting alongside President Trump in the Oval Office a couple of months back, I felt what I judge was a widespread sentiment among the British public, which was a sense of relief that we had a serious man in what were undoubtedly serious times. The serious man—the serious Prime Minister—has engaged in serious diplomacy to get to this agreement today, and as he recognised, with the reduction in tariffs that has been secured, not least in relation to the auto industry and the supply chain that stretches to many parts of the United Kingdom, there will be significant benefits for the United Kingdom as a result.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome this deal. The politics and detail aside, it is worth acknowledging that the Prime Minister’s strategy towards the US—low-key diplomacy, mediation-led over the past few months—has led the United Kingdom to the front of the queue. In addition to Peter Mandelson, I would thank Varun Chandra, civil servants and others for getting us to this position. What practical support can the Minister provide in assistance for business and farmers in North Yorkshire to take advantage of this deal?
Mr Alexander
Let me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I noticed his tweet—I am not sure if one calls it that or X—earlier this afternoon, which reflected his question and which spoke to a wisdom, maturity and experience in recognising the British Government’s work. I genuinely appreciate the graciousness with which he made that public observation, even before doing so in the Chamber.
I echo exactly the sentiment that the right hon. Gentleman has described in relation not just to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Ministers, but to those individuals in the British system, both in Washington and in London, who have been working pretty much flat out to try to secure an outcome to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
On the opportunities for British farmers, the right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that, far from some of the concerns that we have heard from Members on the Front Bench, there are significant opportunities for the UK given the reciprocal character of the agreement reached today. We will work as the Department of Business and Trade with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that British farmers are fully apprised of the opportunities that the new market access potentially offers to them.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the second major trade deal in a matter of days? Our agricultural sector, our automotive sector and our steel sector will all be grateful. I have learned to be wary of enthusiastic posts from President Trump on the subject of trade, but this really does seem to be a win, win, win.
As my right hon. Friend said, there is more to be done and negotiations carry on. Will he confirm, as the Minister for Future Digital Economy and Online Safety did to my Select Committee, that online harms are not on the negotiating table? Can he say whether the digital services tax is on the negotiating table? Can he also say a little bit about the issues about labour practices that he mentioned in his statement?
Mr Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for her focus and concern, regarding both the work on online harm and the digital services tax. As I sought to reflect earlier, those remain undisturbed and unchanged by this agreement. We have listened carefully to the concerns from different parts of the House on online harms, and we have worked hard to advance the UK’s national interest in the agreement that is reached. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the significance of the move in tariffs in relation to steel and aluminium, which, again, represents a significant benefit to the foundations of the UK economy. In that sense, we worked hard in the course of this deal, not just for automotives and the supply chain, but for steel and aluminium.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
One area that is important to this country and worth billions of pounds is defence. What changes will the deal bring to the proposed defence industrial strategy for the big primes and for small and medium-sized enterprises, which this Government, and all of us, want to support?
Mr Alexander
Only in recent days I have been involved in discussions, notwithstanding the work we have been doing on India and the United States, in relation to the defence component of the industrial strategy. We aim to bring the industrial strategy and its defence component to the public in the coming weeks and months. A huge amount of work is happening within Government. The hon. Member is right to recognise that one of the challenges is how we can have defence procurement in the United Kingdom that does not simply reward some of our outstanding primes, but recognises that the character of modern warfare is changing, whereby we are moving from a small number of large platforms being the central feature to a large number of small platforms. We can look, for example, at drone technology in Ukraine and the transformative effect on the battlespace. We are therefore deeply mindful of the point he makes: we need to ensure, in terms of defence procurement, that we have a whole-economy effort that recognises not least the digital and technological contribution of modern warfare. Digital is a key part of the agreement we have reached today, and we will work closely with the United States to advance our shared interest.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Thank you for making this statement possible, Mr Speaker. I welcome this statement and congratulate the Minister, the Labour Government and all our officials in the UK and US who have worked incredibly hard on this, as he says, over several months. I said in the statement on the India free trade deal earlier this week that this is in contrast to the abject failure of the Conservatives, who did not deliver any deal at all. Yesterday, the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, published a report prepared by Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group, which detailed a hit of £6.2 billion to the west midlands GDP from US automotive tariffs. The report also said that a deal within 45 days is absolutely essential, and that an imperfect deal is better than a delayed deal. Does the Minister agree that this deal is a total vindication of the Prime Minister’s approach to work in the spirit of co-operation with our partners in the USA and Europe to deliver a deal that would benefit the whole of the UK?
Mr Alexander
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless efforts in promoting the economic development of and opportunities for his constituency. I last spoke with Richard Parker only two or three weeks ago when we were together. I am fully aware—not least given his background with PwC, as I recollect—that he is deeply invested in economic development and the opportunities for the west midlands, and he has brought that commercial acumen to bear already in office. On the west midlands, perhaps the signature feature of today’s announcement will be the benefit accrued to Jaguar Land Rover, as well as to other luxury car exporters to the United States. Given the scale of Jaguar Land Rover production within the United Kingdom and the reliance on the US market, it was critical that we worked under the huge pressure of time to deliver a cut in tariffs affecting autos. In that sense, the quota agreed today and the reduction in the tariff level will be a real and meaningful benefit to JLR and its supply chain.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on this trade deal? It is an historic moment. I believe that it is in the national interest, but of course we will have to see the details, and the devil is in the detail. It appears from the statement that there are lots of details still to be worked out. I also pay tribute to Lord Mandelson, our ambassador in the United States.
The Minister mentioned managing to keep red lines around hormone-reared beef and chlorinated chicken, and of course that was mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). He also mentioned lamb—I do not think the Minister mentioned lamb—which is important to Shropshire farmers. What has not been mentioned is antibiotics in pigs. This nation eats a lot of pork. A lot of that is reared in Shropshire. Could the Minister assure Shropshire and British farmers that the pig industry in this country is still safe as a result of this deal?
Mr Alexander
I hope I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The SPS arrangements were, as I said, an absolute red line for the United Kingdom. We were keen, both in public and in private, to reinforce the Government’s continuing focus on upholding animal welfare standards here in the United Kingdom. In relation to his broader points about the deal, I am grateful that he has brought his experience and expertise to bear in the House in his judgment that, going by even this initial setting out of the deal, it is clearly in the national interest that we are in a position to have a quota allowing a reduced rate for the export of UK cars, for example. We would otherwise have been looking at very serious consequences for major British manufacturers. I am grateful to him for his generous words. I will ensure that Lord Mandelson, as I am now obliged to call him, is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s generous tributes—he is never averse to receiving compliments.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for his statement, and I wish to put on record my thanks to him, the Prime Minister and our excellent trade negotiators. The Minister has spoken a lot about tariffs so far, but might he talk about the non-tariff and non-quota trade barriers to further economic development between the United Kingdom and the United States, and about where we will go in the ongoing negotiations?
Mr Alexander
It has been a feature of the last few months, since the President was elected, that people have thought that trade policy and tariffs are synonymous. My hon. Friend is exactly right to recognise that a growing proportion of trade is conducted electronically. The UK is an almost 81% services-based economy. We therefore have a huge interest in non-tariffs barriers—not just barriers at the border but barriers behind the border. That is an area of focus in the agreement, and one that will require further work, as is appropriate and right. We were working under huge time pressure to address the tariff issue, for the reasons I have set out, but he is entirely right to recognise that we will take forward an ambitious agenda on non-tariff barriers.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Although a reduction in tariffs is welcome, the past four months have shown the UK Government that President Trump is an unreliable partner, not just in trade but in defence and security, climate and the international rule of law. In contrast, closer relations with our trusted allies in the EU have never been more important. Given that Trump has previously described the EU as “a foe”, “very nasty” and “an atrocity”, will the Minister provide an unequivocal assurance that there are no conditions whatsoever attached to the deal that will constrain the UK’s relationship with the EU, which is the UK’s largest trading partner?
Mr Alexander
I can do no better than refer to the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech towards the end of last year, when he said clearly that we do not want to have to choose between our friends and allies—between dealing and working constructively with the European Union and with the United States.
On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, it is important to recognise that the United States is our deepest and strongest defence ally. For the past 80 years—we should remember the day on which we are gathering—the United Kingdom has worked hand in glove with the armed forces of the United States to keep the world safe. I saw for myself, in previous conflicts such as Afghanistan, the extraordinary heroism and courage that American service personnel brought to bear alongside British personnel, so it is right to recognise that, as well as taking forward this economic agreement, there is a strong and enduring security foundation to the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. All that said, of course we stand ready to work with the European Union as we look ahead to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether there are any conditions. The single biggest concern expressed by many commentators related to SPS, given that that was one of the key agricultural areas on which the previous Government foundered in their negotiations with the first Trump Administration. That was a red line for us in these negotiations—a red line that I am glad to say we have protected.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, the Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson and all involved in this work for getting the deal over the line. Unlike some Opposition Members, who seem intent on talking down the Government’s positive work and our country, I find the deal really positive. Does the Minister agree that this trade deal, the one with India and the fall in interest rates announced by the Bank of England are positive signs that the Government’s plan for change is working and will start to benefit people in my constituency and across the country?
Mr Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous roll-call of honour. It would probably do my career prospects in the Department for Business and Trade some benefit if I added the Secretary of State to his roll-call of Lord Mandelson and the Prime Minister.
Of course, the latest cut in interest rates from the Bank of England will be welcomed by hard-pressed families seeking to make their mortgage payments in communities right across the country. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has commented on today’s US agreement that it is
“jobs saved…not job done.”
The work goes on in relation to sorting out the fiscal mess that we inherited and raising the trend rate of growth, but I hope that both the US deal today and the cut in interest rates will be welcomed in all parts of the House and the country.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the economic landscape has changed dramatically since 26 March: we have had the trade deal with India, we have had today’s pact with the United States, the Employment Rights Bill will come into law later this year, and there is much more besides. In the interests of transparency to this House, and indeed to the country, will he request a summer forecast update from the Office for Budget Responsibility that incorporates all the latest updates and let us know what the public finance impacts will be?
Mr Alexander
As a mere Minister of Trade, I am not sure the Treasury would look kindly on me telling the OBR when to update its forecasts. I am a Trade Minister, not a Treasury Minister, but I have noted the hon. Lady’s observation. She is entirely right that the economic landscape has changed. It is right to recognise that many of the promises that were made in the past about us seeing major trading blocs bringing barriers down have been set aside in recent months and years, and we are seeing major trading blocs putting barriers up. That is why today’s deal is so significant.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and this Labour Government on achieving not just one trade deal but two historic deals in the space of a week. I am a vegetarian, but many of my constituents like nothing better than a chicken curry on the streets of Southall Broadway. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that this deal will protect our British food standards and, in particular, that chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef will remain illegal in this country?
Mr Alexander
First, I am grateful for the catch-all congratulations to the whole Government; it is a sentiment I heartily endorse, and I will ensure it is heard by other colleagues. In relation to my hon. Friend’s substantive point, I can assure her that curries are not just a favourite in Ealing Southall; in most of our major metropolitan cities, there is nothing quite as British as a chicken tikka masala. That is a huge tribute to the 1.9 million people of Indian heritage who live in the United Kingdom and the immense contribution they have made over the decades not just to our cuisine, but to our country. She raises a really important point in relation to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. There was a lot of genuine concern before this agreement was reached today, and I can give the House the assurance she is seeking that there is nothing in this deal that compromises the safety standards of either poultry or beef. We were clear that that was a red line, and we have delivered on that red line.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. There has been a great deal of reassurance for the car industry and agriculture, but there has been no mention of the Scotch whisky industry or the drink and food industry in general. In Edinburgh, as in much of Scotland, that is a huge concern. Should we expect details next week, or are there assurances he can give us now?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, and I say that as a Member with a constituency interest: I have the Glenkinchie distillery in my East Lothian constituency, which I am delighted to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited this week, in the light of the deal that was struck with India.
In relation to this deal with the United States, it is right to recognise that further work and negotiations will continue, not least in relation to some of the broader sectors that it does not cover. It is also right to recognise, in this week of all weeks, the extraordinary significance of the Indian trade deal that was struck for the Scotch Whisky Association. Members need not take my word for it; they can look at the words of the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, who described in glowing terms the significance of the Indian market and the precipitate decline in the tariffs that we have secured in that deal. We have more to do, but broadly this has been recognised as a very significant and positive week not just for Scottish whisky, but for Scottish salmon and, I am delighted to say, Irn-Bru, which will also benefit from access to the Indian market.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
In the Vatican, in the last hour, the cardinals have elected a new Pope; and we wish the new Holy Father well, and give thanks for the life of Pope Francis. Of course, we send our best wishes to the Catholic community in Newcastle-under-Lyme and up and down our United Kingdom.
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the confirmation that he has given several times to colleagues that imports of hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken will remain illegal under this deal. That is good news, and important for my farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and farmers up and down the country. Will the Minister expand a little further on what exact engagement took place with farmers and their representatives before this deal was agreed, and what support will be pledged to farmers now, because that is important to my farmers and those up and down the country?
Mr Alexander
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s observations. I was unaware on arriving in the Chamber that a successor to Pope Francis, who is greatly grieved and missed on both sides of the House, has now been announced, and of course we wish the new pontiff well in the spiritual leadership that role will require—and I say that as a proud Presbyterian and member of the Church of Scotland.
On the broader point about engagement with farmers, I also have a farming constituency, and I was on a farm in east Lothian only last Friday, hearing directly from farmers about the impact of the market challenges faced by farmers not just here but internationally. Through our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there is a lot of engagement regularly with farmers. Naturally and appropriately, that Department was involved in the cross-Whitehall processes that led to the negotiators being able to reach agreement today, and I fully anticipate further opportunities for dialogue with farmers in the future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
We have had huge amounts of tariffs put on the UK, and then a trade deal to reduce them; there have been positive impacts on some industries, and potentially negative impacts on others. Today’s announcement of a UK-US trade deal has therefore given rise to more questions than answers. On one side, we have US officials hailing the deal as “dramatically increasing” access to the UK agricultural market, which I am sure will ring alarm bells for many. On the other side, we have the UK Government claiming that the agreement is balanced and fair. First, will the Minister categorially confirm that no reductions to UK food standards, environmental protections—which have not been mentioned yet—and animal welfare rules have been conceded in this agreement? Secondly, what is the true impact of the tariff arrangements on British farmers and growers? We have heard vague claims of reciprocal access, but have the Government conducted any assessment of the economic impact for UK farmers, their practices and their opportunities?
Mr Alexander
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and early on he mentioned a trade deal to reduce tariffs; that is exactly the deal we have sought to secure and have secured today. He is right to recognise that there are continuing challenges, not just for the UK but for many countries, in relation to protectionism and higher tariff rates, but today represents significant progress on the terms, as I have described. On animal welfare and food standards, I reassure him about everything I have said on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; we made that a red line and were very clear about it, and were unwilling to compromise. I also assure him that there is nothing vague about the reciprocity I described in terms of the opportunities for beef farmers.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that this deal will not in any way undermine the nation’s SPS rules and regulations, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that there will be a degree of nervousness among British and indeed Welsh farmers, especially beef farmers, for although the tariff rate quota agreed is modest compared with that agreed under the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, it does of course come as an addition, and farmers will be worried about the cumulative impact. I think the Minister has mentioned this, but will he confirm that the 13,000 tonnes represents the maximum tariff quota for beef that has been agreed, and has any tariff quota been agreed for lamb, pork and poultry?
Mr Alexander
Forgive me: I was shuffling through my papers and missed the hon. Gentleman’s final point, but I am happy to write to him. He is absolutely right, I can assure him, to recognise that compared to the tariff quotas agreed under the Australia deal, negotiated by the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Henley, there is much more proportionality—a much more modest increase—anticipated under the quota in the agreement reached today. I recognise his point that there are continuing challenges for farmers in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to seek to address those.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef, but will there be protections in place for egg products? Hens raised in battery cages are illegal in this country, but not elsewhere in the world, so will it be illegal to import egg products from hens raised in those poor conditions elsewhere?
Mr Alexander
We have not compromised our animal welfare standards in any aspect of what we have agreed on behalf of the United Kingdom today.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for dragging the Minister to the House tonight to explain the terms of the deal. After hammering farms with the family farm tax, it now looks like Labour is selling our farmers down the river, allowing cheap, low-quality imports from the United States. President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture has said:
“This deal puts our great American Agricultural Producers FIRST!”
Is she wrong?
Mr Alexander
It is hardly a surprise that a member of the Trump Administration should talk about America first. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the north star by which we have negotiated is the UK’s national interest. Today’s agreement reflects the quiet but determined diplomacy of a serious Prime Minister to deliver a deal. The hon. Gentleman’s party does not have a great track record on serious Prime Ministers, or on beef quotas. To put today’s announcement in context, the hon. Gentleman’s Government agreed to a UK-Australia FTA with a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year. That might be a point that he wants to make to farmers in the Borders.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Welsh farmers have been reaping the rewards of high beef prices over the past few years. That has been the one piece of good news in the industry. They now hear that another Government have signed another trade deal allowing even more beef imports into our country. Why have the Government decided to include beef imports in the deal, and to kick our farmers in the teeth again?
Mr Alexander
I simply do not recognise the aeriated contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made. He has an important and legitimate role in representing farmers in his constituency and more broadly, but I assure him that if he looks at the numbers, including the quota agreed by the previous Government, and the relatively modest shift in the tariff rate quota on beef that has been agreed today, his concerns will be allayed.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I hope that the Minister will recognise why UK farmers might raise an eyebrow at the assurances that he has given to the House. They have been let down time and again since July through this Government’s policies on the family farm tax, the sustainable farming incentive, double cab pick-ups and fertiliser tax—the list goes on and on. Brooke Rollins, the US Secretary of Agriculture, said after the deal was announced that
“it can’t be understated…how important this deal is”
for American farmers, and that it will “exponentially increase” US beef exports to the UK. The Minister will understand why that raises concerns for our farmers. Will he assure farmers up and down the country that in any further trade negotiations with the US, their interests, livelihoods and futures will not be on the table?
Mr Alexander
It would be remiss of me not to start my answer to the hon. Lady with anything other than humble congratulations on her time in the London marathon. Having run it twice, I would have seen her at the starting line, but that would have been the last time I saw her. It was a minor consolation to me that my time was somewhat faster than that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). All that being said, she makes a serious point about British farmers. I assure her that the interests of British farmers, rural Britain and the wider agricultural sector is a constant feature of our thinking in Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Despite the reassurances from the Minister, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel really anxious about being thrown under a bus yet again as a result of this trade deal, especially after the trade deals agreed by former Conservative Governments with Australia and New Zealand, which undermined British farmers and food standards. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that this deal with the US will not undermine British farmers? What measures will he put in place to ensure that low-quality, low-welfare products do not enter the UK?
Mr Alexander
I reiterate the points that I sought to make earlier. Imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high standards of welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high and continuing SPS standards. I can put it no more clearly than that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
East Hampshire farmers will be relieved to hear what the Minister has said about food standards, including on hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, after everything that has happened to them in the last period. Obviously we will have to see the detail, and see what else is in the agreement.
I will ask about online safety. The Minister has said already that there has been no change to the digital services tax and no rowing back on the online safety regulatory regime. Can he confirm that no commitments have been made that would curtail the freedom of this House to make further changes in this area?
Mr Alexander
On today of all days, I will not suggest that there should be any fetters or constraints whatsoever on this House when it comes to introducing legislation on online harm, or any other issue.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that I never want to be put in this position again? I remind people that before we send Members home, we ought to think to tell them that there will not be a statement. I think that was bad. The Chair of the Select Committee complained to me, because he was told to go away. We should not be doing this. In this House, we need to work together. This House should be respected. I will stand up for the Back Benchers. Please never put me in this position again.
On behalf of this House and all the Roman Catholics across the United Kingdom, particularly in Chorley and Lancashire, I wish the new pope well.
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee—I am sure Members are aware of these. Please switch electronic devices to vibrate or silent. No food or drink is permitted during Committee sittings, except for water, unless you have a particular health need—obviously, speak to me, and I am sure that will be fine. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or alternatively pass their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room. Very importantly, Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. We will have a two-minute silence at 12 noon.
New Clause 21
Terrorism offences excepted from defence for slavery or trafficking victims
“(1) Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 29 (offences under the Terrorism Act 2000)—
(a) before the entry for section 54 insert—
‘section 11 (membership of a proscribed organisation)
section 12 (support of a proscribed organisation)
section 15 (fund-raising for terrorism)
section 16 (use and possession of property for terrorism)
section 17 (funding arrangements)
section 17A (insurance against payments made in response to terrorist demands)
section 18 (money laundering)
section 19 (disclosure of information: duty)
section 21A (failure to disclose: regulated sector)
section 38B (information about acts of terrorism)
section 39 (disclosure of information prejudicial to investigation)’;
(b) after the entry for section 57 insert—
‘section 58 (collection of information)
section 58A (eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc)
section 58B (entering or remaining in a designated area)’.
(3) In paragraph 31 (offences under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), after the entry for section 50 insert—
‘section 67 (security of pathogens and toxins)
section 79 (disclosures relating to nuclear security)’.
(4) In paragraph 35 (offences under the Terrorism Act 2006)—
(a) before the entry for section 5 insert—
‘section 1 (encouragement of terrorism)
section 2 (dissemination of terrorist publications)’;
(b) after the entry for section 6 insert—
‘section 8 (attendance at a place used for terrorist training)’.
(5) After paragraph 35 insert—
‘Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c.28)
35ZA An offence under section 54 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (offences relating to notification).
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (c. 23)
35ZB An offence under section 23 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (contravention of terrorism prevention and investigation measures notice).
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (c. 6)
35ZC An offence under section 10 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (breach of temporary exclusion order or notice).’
(6) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to an offence committed before this section comes into force.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause excepts the listed terrorism offences from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 61
Notification requirements
“(1) This section applies where a youth diversion order requires the respondent to comply with this section.
(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a youth diversion order requiring the respondent to comply with this section is first served, the respondent must notify to the police—
(a) the respondent’s name and, where the respondent uses one or more other names, each of those names,
(b) the respondent’s home address, and
(c) the name and address of any educational establishment the respondent normally attends.
(3) If, while the respondent is required to comply with this section, the respondent—
(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order,
(b) changes home address, or
(c) begins to attend an educational establishment the name and address of which have not been notified under the order,
the respondent must notify, to the police, the new name, the new home address or the name and address of the new educational establishment.
(4) A notification under subsection (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the respondent uses the name, changes home address or first attends the educational establishment.
(5) A notification under this section is given by—
(a) attending at a police station in the police area in which the home address, or the court which made the order, is situated, and
(b) giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station.
(6) A notification under this section must be acknowledged in writing.
(7) In this section ‘home address’ means—
(a) the address of the respondent’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or
(b) where the respondent has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the respondent can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the respondent may select.
(8) In determining the period of three days mentioned in subsection (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the respondent is—
(a) in police detention within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (see section 118(2) of that Act);
(b) remanded in or committed to custody by an order of a court or kept in service custody,
(c) serving a sentence of imprisonment or a term of service detention,
(d) detained in a hospital, or
(e) outside the United Kingdom.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause enables a youth diversion order to require the respondent to notify to the police their name and address and the name and address of any educational establishment they normally attend.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 62
Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales
“(1) A youth diversion order made by a court in England and Wales may impose on the respondent a requirement (an ‘electronic monitoring requirement’) to submit to electronic monitoring of the respondent’s compliance with prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order. This is subject to section (Conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirement: England and Wales).
(2) A youth diversion order that includes an electronic monitoring requirement must specify the person who is to be responsible for the monitoring.
(3) The person specified under subsection (2) (‘the responsible person’) must be of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
(4) Where a youth diversion order imposes an electronic monitoring requirement, the respondent must (among other things)—
(a) submit, as required from time to time by the responsible person, to—
(i) being fitted with, or the installation of, any necessary apparatus, and
(ii) the inspection or repair of any apparatus fitted or installed for the purposes of the monitoring;
(b) not interfere with, or with the working of, any apparatus fitted or installed for the purposes of the monitoring;
(c) take any steps required by the responsible person for the purpose of keeping in working order any apparatus fitted or installed for the purposes of the monitoring.
These obligations have effect as requirements of the order.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause enables a youth diversion order to require the respondent to submit to electronic monitoring of their compliance with the prohibitions or requirements of the order (if the conditions set out in NC63) are met.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 63
Conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirement: England and Wales
“(1) This section applies for the purpose of determining whether a court in England and Wales may impose an electronic monitoring requirement under section (Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales).
(2) An electronic monitoring requirement may not be imposed in the respondent’s absence.
(3) If there is a person (other than the respondent) without whose co-operation it would be impracticable to secure the monitoring in question, the requirement may not be imposed without that person’s consent.
(4) A court may impose the requirement in relation to a relevant police area only if—
(a) the Secretary of State has given notification that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the area, and
(b) it is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under the arrangements currently available.
(5) For this purpose ‘relevant police area’ means—
(a) in any case, the police area in England and Wales in which it appears to the court that the respondent resides or will reside, or
(b) in a case where it is proposed to include in the order—
(i) a requirement that the respondent remains, for specified periods, at a specified place in England and Wales, or
(ii) provision prohibiting the respondent from entering a specified place or area in England and Wales,
the police area in which the place or area proposed to be specified is situated.
(6) In subsection (5) ‘specified’ means specified in the youth diversion order.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause sets out the conditions for imposing an electronic monitoring requirement under NC62.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 64
Data from electronic monitoring in England and Wales: code of practice
“The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice relating to the processing of data gathered in the course of electronic monitoring of persons under electronic monitoring requirements (within the meaning of section (Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales)) imposed by youth diversion orders in England and Wales.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice relating to the processing of data gathered under electronic monitoring requirements imposed under NC62.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 65
Reviews of operation of this Chapter
“In the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, in section 44(2) (provisions the operation of which the person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 is also responsible for reviewing), after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(f) Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.’” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment provides for the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to report on the operation of Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Bill (youth diversion orders).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 66
Remote sales of knives etc
“(1) Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (remote sales of knives) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (4) substitute—
‘(4) Condition A is that, before the sale—
(a) the seller obtained from the buyer—
(i) a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer, and
(ii) a photograph of the buyer, and
(b) on the basis of the things obtained under paragraph (a), a reasonable person would have been satisfied that the buyer was aged 18 or over.
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) an “identity document” means—
(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);
(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));
(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.’
(3) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘a person aged 18 or over’ substitute ‘the buyer’.
(4) In subsection (6), for ‘a person aged 18 or over’ substitute ‘the buyer’.
(5) In subsection (8), omit ‘or a person acting on behalf of the buyer’ in both places it occurs.
(6) After subsection (9) insert—
‘(10) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes changes to the defences available to a person who sells knives etc to under 18s, in contravention of section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where the sale is made remotely (e.g. online).
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 67—Delivery of knives etc.
Government new clause 68—Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales.
Government new clause 69—Remote sale and letting of crossbows.
Government new clause 70—Delivery of crossbows.
Government new clause 71—Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision.
Government new clause 72—“Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers”.
Government new clause 73—Coordinating officer.
Government new clause 74—Notice requiring appointment of content manager.
Government new clause 75—Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances.
Government new clause 76—Replacement of content manager.
Government new clause 77—Duty to notify changes in required information.
Government new clause 78—Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty.
Government new clause 79—Unlawful weapons content.
Government new clause 80—Content removal notices.
Government new clause 81—Content removal notices: review.
Government new clause 82—Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content.
Government new clause 83—Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties.
Government new clause 84—Guidance.
Government new clause 85—Notices.
Government new clause 86—Interpretation of Chapter.
Government new schedule 1—Civil penalties for service providers and content managers.
Government amendments 80 and 81.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. This group of new clauses makes extensive and timely changes to the law around the sale and marketing of offensive weapons, particularly knives and crossbows. These measures form part of the steps that we are taking to tackle knife crime. They will implement recommendations from the police’s independent end-to-end review of online knife sales, undertaken by Commander Stephen Clayman at the request of the Home Secretary, and will deliver on our manifesto commitment to hold to account senior managers who flout the rules on online sales.
New clauses 66 and 67 introduce new, stricter age verification at the point of sale and on delivery for knives bought online. New clauses 69 and 70 make the same changes in respect of crossbows. Commander Clayman’s review highlighted that existing age-verification methods for online sales are insufficient. Buyers can provide false birth dates and parcels can be left with neighbours so that there is no age check of the buyer. Existing legislation, as contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, already requires age checks for the sale and delivery of knives. We are introducing two key changes to the existing requirements.
First, the checks at the point of sale will have to include photographic identity documents, plus a current photograph to demonstrate that the identity documents belong to the buyer. Secondly, on delivery, couriers will be required to check photographic identification provided by the person receiving the package. There will also be a new offence of handing the knife to someone other than the buyer. That will mean that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours with no checks of the intended recipient.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Minister will remember me mentioning Julie Taylor, who has campaigned locally on this issue after the death of her grandson Liam. She welcomes these new clauses. She said to me that she welcomes anything that helps get rid of this awful crime, and that she thanks the Government for introducing them. Does the Minister agree that these measures give an even greater level of protection and prevention so that we can start to drive down the awful offence of knife crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is heartening to know that Julie supports these new clauses and recognises the important role that they can play in tackling knife crime. Again, I extend my condolences to Julie and her family on the death of Liam.
These clauses also have the support of the coalition to tackle knife crime, which involves many families, campaigners and victims of knife crime helping the Government to develop policy. They will make sure that we are held to account for our promise to halve knife crime over the next decade, including through the strengthened requirements in the new clauses, which aim to ensure that under-18s cannot easily evade checks when buying knives online, as they have sadly in the past.
Like knives, crossbows are an age-restricted item and cannot be sold or hired to anyone under the age of 18. Legislation for crossbows was brought in through the Crossbows Act 1987, but in contrast to knives, there has been little change to that legislation since. These new clauses seek to introduce the same age-verification requirements for the online sale, hire and delivery of crossbows as are being brought in, or are already in place, for knives.
New clause 69 amends the 1987 Act to introduce equivalent age-verification methods for crossbows to those in section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides limitations on the defence to the offence of selling a knife. For crossbows, where the seller or seller’s agent is not in the presence of the buyer, the seller will not be regarded as having taken
“all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence”
unless all the conditions are met.
Condition 1 is that the seller obtained a copy of an identity document and a photograph of the buyer. Condition 2 is that the package containing the article was clearly marked by the seller to say that it contained a crossbow or crossbow part and that it should be delivered only into the hands of a person aged 18 or over. Condition 3 is that the seller took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that it would be delivered into the hands of the buyer. Condition 4 is that the seller did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.
As with bladed articles, before the dispatch of the crossbow or part of a crossbow, the seller must receive from the buyer a copy of an identity document issued to the buyer and a photograph of the buyer, and confirm that they are aged 18 or over. New clause 70 amends the Crossbows Act 1987 to create a new offence on the part of the seller if they deliver or arrange for delivery to residential premises in respect of the sale or letting of a crossbow or part of a crossbow, similar to equivalent defences to those in section 39A of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 for knives.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for setting out in detail the provisions for where crossbows are sold and the seller is not in the presence of the buyer. On providing identity documents and photographic evidence, is she concerned that the wording that she used is vague and that there is scope for providing false documents? Perhaps she could reassure me that, in some cases, copies would certified by a solicitor or someone of sufficient standing in the community—whatever the wording might be. I am concerned that false documents could be provided, but perhaps there is provision to stop that.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and it is of concern to me as the Minister. We are introducing this new procedure because we think that the current legislation around buying and delivering is not strong enough. I take his point and I will reflect on it. It may be—I do need to think about it—that it would be onerous to have certified copies. We want to get this right, however, and ensure that accurate legal documents are used, so I will come back to that point.
I will return to the new clauses, so that the Committee is clear about what they will do. New clause 70 also provides for a new offence on the part of the courier or the person delivering on their behalf, equivalent to the new offence that I have described for the delivery of a knife. The courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier must provide the crossbow or parts of crossbows only into the hands of the actual buyer, and only at the address that the buyer provided at the outset. If the courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier fails to do that, they will commit a summary offence attracting a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.
It will be a defence, however, for the courier or person delivering on behalf of the courier to show that they have checked an official identity document, and that the ID has the name of the person indicated by the seller, that it shows that the holder is over 18, and that as far as they can tell, the picture in the identity document is of the person at the doorstep. Where businesses hire out or let crossbows for corporate events or entertainment—something that I did not know happened, but apparently does—and do so online, the age-verification measures will apply to the hire and delivery of the crossbows where the hirer is an individual. New clause 71 also provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on the new offence under the Crossbows Act 1987.
Turning to the reportable sale of knives, new clause 68 introduces a requirement to report all sales of knives where they are made remotely, including online sales. That will help the police to tackle what is called the grey market—the resale of knives on social media. The police tell us that grey market sellers act irresponsibly. For example, they promote knives as weapons, which is unlawful, and they do not conduct age-verification checks. The new clause will give the police information that will enable them to act. Sellers who do not comply will be liable to a fine.
Sales are reportable where six knives or more, or two or more qualifying sets of knives such as a block of knives, or one or more qualifying set together with five or more knives, are sold remotely in one sale and are to be delivered to the same residential address in England or Wales. The reporting requirement is also triggered when multiple sales meeting those limits are made to the same person or the same residential address in England or Wales within a 30-day period.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I welcome the new clauses—thinking back to my policing days, they are extremely welcome. Is there a risk that if we do not add these clauses to restrict such sales, knife crime and crossbow crime could become more prevalent over the coming years?
Dame Diana Johnson
These new clauses on bulk and suspicious sales come directly from the police—from Commander Clayman’s report and his concern about the grey market. The police clearly believe that these new measures are necessary for them to use this intelligence to tackle our problems with knife crime. Obviously, that fits with the Government’s manifesto commitment to halve knife crime over the next 10 years.
That information and intelligence will be sent to a central unit in the first instance. We will provide guidance to the police on the use of that information. We expect that the information that is not connected to other relevant intelligence linking it to criminality will be deleted and not subject to further investigation.
I turn now to the sanctions on online executives. Government new clauses 72 to 86 and new schedule 1 introduce civil penalties for online companies and their senior managers should they fail to take down illegal knife and offensive weapons content when notified of it by the police. Knives and weapons that are illegally marketed to encourage violence or to promote their suitability for use in violent attacks are commonly sold online and then used in senseless attacks. We know that the boys who murdered Ronan Kanda did so using weapons that had been illegally sold online. Many of those types of knives are marketed on social media and other platforms, meaning that those companies indirectly profit from their sale.
Commander Clayman’s review set out the extent of the problem related to the online sale of knives and offensive weapons, particularly where it relates to knives illegally being made available to young people. That report recommended that social media platforms be required to remove such prohibited material within 48 hours of police notification. These new clauses deliver on that recommendation.
The Home Office consulted widely on these measures. We engaged directly with tech companies and also held a public consultation. Tech companies and associations, charities, councils and members of the public responded to the consultation, and our response to that was published recently.
Collectively, the new clauses will grant the police the power to issue content removal notices to online marketplaces, social media platforms and search engines. The notices will require them to take down specified illegal content relating to knives or offensive weapons. If the specified content is not taken down within 48 hours, the company and an executive designated as their content manager would be liable to civil penalty notices of up to £60,000 and £10,000 respectively. Additionally, should a company fail to designate an appropriate UK-based executive when required to do so by the police, it would be liable for a civil penalty notice of up to £60,000.
These measures provide important safeguards. Both online companies and their designated executives will have the opportunity to request that the content removal notice be reviewed. The police must comply with such requests. Should online companies not have an executive who meets the criteria to be designated as their content manager, they will have the opportunity to inform the police as such. Prior to the issuing of a civil penalty notice, the company and the content manager will have the opportunity to make representations to the police. Finally, penalty notices may of course be challenged in the courts.
I fully expect online companies to act responsibly and take down harmful illegal content when made aware of it. The measures will be used in the rare cases where reckless companies choose to continue hosting such content. Taken together, this is a comprehensive package of measures that will further help to restrict the supply of weapons, particularly to children, and to keep our communities safe. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The Opposition welcome the measures that aim to restrict the sale of knives in a wider bid to tackle knife crime. The unregulated purchase of dangerous items such as knives or crossbows presents a serious and growing threat to public safety. Without proper controls the weapons can be easily acquired by individuals with harmful intent, including gang members, violent offenders and young people at risk of exploitation. The availability of such items online without age verification, purchase limits or traceability undermines efforts to reduce knife crime and protect communities. It also places law enforcement in a reactive position, forced to respond to violence that could have been prevented through stronger regulation and control. Ensuring proper safeguards around the sale and distribution of knives is not about restricting legitimate use: it is about closing loopholes that are currently exploited to devastating effect.
Government new clause 66 strengthens the legal framework around the remote sale of knives by tightening the requirement for verifying the age of the buyer. Under the proposed changes to section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, sellers must obtain both a copy of a valid identity document and a photograph of the buyer before the sale is made. A reasonable person would need to be satisfied that the buyer is 18 or over, based on the evidence. By increasing the burden of proof on the seller and clarifying acceptable forms of ID, the measure aims to reduce the availability of knives to young people and close key loopholes in online transactions, contributing to broader efforts to curb knife crime.
Government new clause 68 introduces a legal duty for sellers in England and Wales to report bulk remote sales of knives and other bladed articles, marking a significant step forward in tackling the online flow of potentially dangerous weapons. The measure is aimed at identifying suspicious buying patterns that might indicate stockpiling for criminal use or illicit resale, helping enforcement bodies to monitor and disrupt supply chains. Notably, the duty applies to individuals and businesses unless the buyer can prove they are a VAT-registered business or incorporated company. Failure to report such sales will rightly be a criminal offence, although sellers will have a due-diligence defence if they can demonstrate they took reasonable steps to comply. The clause bolsters the UK’s strategy to reduce knife crime by increasing accountability in the remote sales sector and closing gaps that criminals may exploit.
Government new clauses 69 to 71 amend the Crossbows Act 1987 to tighten the rules on remote sale and delivery of crossbows, preventing sales to under-18s. Government new clause 69 requires sellers to verify the buyer’s age with identity documents and photographs, ensuring marked packages are delivered only to the buyer, and not to lockers. Government new clause 70 creates offences for delivering crossbows to residential premises or lockers. Government new clause 71 defines terms, allows regulations for additional offences and extends guidance to cover crossbow offences. This aligns with the Bill’s aims to enhance public safety. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee how the Government will support businesses in complying with the new verification requirements. What resources will ensure effective enforcement of delivery restrictions?
Government new clauses 72 to 83 establish a framework for regulating online service providers by requiring the appointment of content managers to oversee compliance with a new chapter of the Bill. Government new clause 73 mandates the Secretary of State to designate a co-ordinating officer from a police force or the National Crime Agency to manage functions, with authority to delegate tasks. Government new clause 74 empowers the co-ordinating officer to issue an appointment notice requiring service providers to appoint a UK resident content manager within seven days or confirm that no suitable candidate exists, and provide contact details.
Government new clause 75 requires providers to appoint a content manager within seven days if a suitable candidate emerges within two years after they reported them non-existing. Government new clause 76 allows providers to replace content managers and mandates notification within seven days if a manager no longer meets eligibility criteria, requiring a new appointment or confirmation that there is no candidate. Government new clause 77 obliges providers to notify the co-ordinating officer of any changes in required information within seven days, and Government new clause 78 authorises penalties of up to £60,000 for non-compliance, including failure to appoint a manager, provide accurate information or correct any false statements. Government new clause 80 empowers authorised officers to issue content removal notices to providers and content managers, requiring removal of unlawful weapons content within 48 hours.
Government new clause 81 allows recipients to request a review of removal notices within 48 hours, with a senior officer reviewing and confirming, modifying or withdrawing the notice. Government new clause 82 requires decision notices post-review to enforce content removal within 24 hours or the remaining 48-hour period. Will the Government do anything to support service providers—especially smaller platforms—in meeting content manager appointment requirements and ensuring that there is appropriate guidance or training available? How will the co-ordinating officer ensure consistent enforcement of these obligations across diverse online services?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the shadow Minister for the general tone of his response on this group of Government new clauses, which come directly from the review that Commander Clayman set out, as well the manifesto commitment we made, particularly around tech executives and holding them to account.
There has been a great deal of consultation, particularly around the tech executives, how it would work and engagement with tech companies. I take the shadow Minister’s point about smaller platforms, but there has been that engagement. On the issue around training and enforcement in terms of the new clauses relating to sale and delivery, it is clear that all courier and delivery companies will have to ensure that their staff are trained on these new legal requirements. To be clear, if the person who is delivering the package has taken all steps to make sure that they have checked the information that is being provided and the identification document, and they are acting reasonably, that is a defence, but there will be a need for training and for people to know what their legal obligations are, particularly when they are delivering, because we know that has been a particular issue. The engagement, particularly with tech executives, that I talked about has also happened with courier firms and delivery businesses, and will continue.
I want to go back to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised about identity checks, just so everybody is clear.
The Chair
Order. We will now stand for the national two-minute silence to commemorate VE Day.
The Committee observed a two-minute silence.
Dame Diana Johnson
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I wanted to make it clear that the documents that are being talked about in relation to proving identity are passports and driving licences. I take the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised with me in his intervention, but those are the two documents that will be looked at and provided. We will want to make sure that this works, and in the future, other documents may well need to be added to that list. However, just to be clear, it is those two documents.
As I have also said, we would expect that a person who is delivering would look at those documents. I do not really want to get into how those documents can be forged, because that is obviously an issue that is on the hon. Gentleman’s mind, but at the moment those are the two documents, and we would expect them to be examined by a delivery driver or courier when the items are delivered.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister; that is helpful. Those documents are obviously very hard to forge, so I was not suggesting that they might be forged. My question was about was the possibility—I may simply be wrong here—of someone else presenting those documents. They are not forgeries; they are simply not the passport or driving licence of the buyer. Clearly, if the buyer has to be present when they present those documents to the person making the delivery, there is plainly not an issue, so I welcome that.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is clear. As we have said, photographic identity has to be provided at the beginning of the process—at the point of sale—as well as the identity document, to ensure it matches up. ‘RTA section 27A Causing death by dangerous cycling. On indictment. Imprisonment for life. RTA section 27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both.’ ‘RTA section 28B Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both. RTA section 28C Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) On conviction in England and Wales: the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 2 years or a fine or both.’” —(Alex Davies-Jones.)
With that, I commend these measures to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 66 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 67
Delivery of knives etc
“(1) The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 39 insert—
‘39A Defences to offence under section 38: England and Wales
(1) It is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(2) of delivering a bladed product to residential premises to show that the delivery conditions were met.
(2) It is a defence for a person (“the seller”) charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(2) of arranging for the delivery of a bladed product to residential premises to show that—
(a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the bladed product unless the delivery conditions were met, and
(b) the seller took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the product would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence.
(4) The delivery conditions are that—
(a) the person (“P”) into whose hands the bladed product was finally delivered showed the person delivering it an identity document issued to P, and
(b) on the basis of that document a reasonable person would have been satisfied—
(i) that P was over 18, and
(ii) if the buyer was an individual, that P was the buyer.
(5) In subsection (4) “identity document” means—
(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);
(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));
(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged in England and Wales with an offence under section 38.’
(3) After section 40 insert—
‘40A Delivery of bladed products sold by UK seller to residential premises: England and Wales
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a person (“the seller”) sells a bladed product to another person (“the buyer”),
(b) the seller and the buyer are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale and the seller is within the United Kingdom at that time,
(c) before the sale the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the courier”) by which the courier agreed to deliver bladed products for the seller,
(d) the courier was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed products, and
(e) pursuant to the arrangement, the courier finally delivers the bladed product to residential premises in England or Wales.
(2) The courier commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the bladed product to residential premises in England and Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.
(3) A person finally delivering the bladed product to residential premises in England and Wales on behalf of the courier commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 39A(4)) were met.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that—
(a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 39A(4)) were met, or
(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a bladed product.
(6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(8) Section 39(2) to (5) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and (e) as it applies for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) and (e).
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under this section.’
(4) After section 42 insert—
‘42A Delivery of bladed articles sold by non-UK seller to premises: England and Wales
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a person (“the seller”) sells a bladed article to another person (“the buyer”),
(b) the seller and the buyer are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale and the seller is outside the United Kingdom at that time,
(c) before the sale the seller entered into an arrangement with a person (“the courier”) by which the courier agreed to deliver bladed articles for the seller,
(d) the courier was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of bladed articles, and
(e) pursuant to the arrangement, the courier finally delivers the bladed article to premises in England or Wales.
(2) The courier commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the bladed article, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.
(3) A person finally delivering the bladed article on behalf of the courier commits an offence if, when they deliver the bladed article, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the buyer is an individual, is the buyer.
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that the delivery conditions were met.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that—
(a) the delivery conditions were met, or
(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a bladed article.
(6) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(8) Section 42(2) and (3) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) as it applies for the purposes of section 42(1)(b).
(9) In this section—
“bladed article” means an article to which section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies (as that section has effect in relation to England and Wales);
“delivery conditions” has the meaning given by section 39A(4), but reading the reference in that section to a bladed product as a reference to a bladed article.’
(5) In section 38(10) (offences) for “section” substitute “sections 39A and”.
(6) In section 39 (delivery of bladed products to persons under 18)—
(a) in the heading, at the end insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”;
(b) in subsection (1)(e) after “premises” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(c) in subsection (7) omit paragraph (a).
(7) In section 40 (defences to delivery offences under sections 38 and 39)—
(a) in the heading, after “39” insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”;
(b) in subsection (1) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(c) in subsection (2) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(d) in subsection (3) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(e) in subsection (4) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(f) in subsection (5) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(g) in subsection (6) after “charged” insert “in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(h) in subsection (7), omit “England and Wales or”;
(i) in subsection (14), in the definition of “appropriate national authority” omit paragraph (a).
(8) In section 41 (meaning of “bladed product” in sections 38 to 40)—
(a) in the heading, for “40” substitute “40A”;
(b) in subsection (1) for “40” substitute “40A”;
(c) in subsection (2) for “40” substitute “40A”.
(9) In section 42 (delivery of knives etc pursuant to arrangement with seller outside UK)—
(a) in the heading, at the end insert “: Scotland and Northern Ireland”;
(b) in subsection (1)(e), after “article” insert “to premises in Scotland or Northern Ireland”;
(c) in subsection (5) omit “England and Wales or”;
(d) omit subsection (10)(a);
(e) omit subsection (11)(a).
(10) In section 66(1)(j) (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) for “42” substitute “42A”.
(11) In section 68 (regulations and orders)—
(a) in subsection (2) after “State” insert, “, except for regulations under section 39A(5)(d),”;
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 39A(5)(d) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes changes to the offences and defences relating to delivery of knives to premises in England and Wales following a remote sale.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 68
Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales
“(1) In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, after section 141C insert—
‘141D Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales
(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, report to the person specified in the regulations any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.
(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in subsection (4), sells—
(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;
(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles;
(c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.
(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.
(4) The ways are—
(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in England and Wales, or
(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—
(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in England and Wales, or
(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in England and Wales.
(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller and the person to whom the bladed article is sold are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—
(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;
(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.
(7) A sale is not reportable if the person to whom the articles are sold (“the buyer”)—
(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and
(b) is—
(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or
(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.
(8) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.
(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.
(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this section if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(11) A person who commits an offence under subsection (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(12) In this section—
“bladed article” means an article to which section 141A applies (as that section has effect in relation to England and Wales), other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;
“residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).
(13) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may in particular include requirements about—
(a) how reports are to be made,
(b) when reports to be made, and
(c) the information reports must include.
(14) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(15) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend—
(a) the number of bladed articles specified in subsection (2)(a);
(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in subsection (2)(b);
(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in subsection (2)(c);
(d) the number of bladed articles specified in subsection (2)(c);
(e) the period specified in subsection (4)(b).
(16) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (15) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(2) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(1) (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc) after paragraph (g) insert—
‘(ga) section 141D of that Act (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales),’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause imposes a requirement on sellers of bladed articles to report bulk sales to a person specified in regulations.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 69
Remote sale and letting of crossbows
“(1) The Crossbows Act 1987 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 omit ‘unless he believes him to be eighteen years or older and has reasonable grounds for the belief’.
(3) After section 1A insert—
‘1B Defences to offence under section 1: England and Wales
(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(2) Subsection (3) applies if—
(a) a person (“A”) is charged with an offence under section 1, and
(b) A was not in the presence of the person (“B”) to whom the crossbow or part of a crossbow was sold or let on hire at the time of the sale or letting on hire.
(3) A is not to be regarded as having shown that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence unless, as a minimum, A shows that the following conditions are met.
(4) Condition 1 is that, before the sale or letting on hire—
(a) A obtained from B—
(i) a copy of an identity document issued to B, and
(ii) a photograph of B, and
(b) on the basis of the things obtained under paragraph (a), a reasonable person would have been satisfied that B was aged 18 or over.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an “identity document” means—
(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);
(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic 1988 or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1));
(d) any other document specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(6) Condition 2 is that when the package containing the crossbow or part of the crossbow was dispatched by A, it was clearly marked to indicate—
(a) that it contained a crossbow or part of a crossbow, and
(b) that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of B.
(7) Condition 3 is that A took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of B.
(8) Condition 4 is that A did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker.
(9) Where the crossbow or part of a crossbow was dispatched by A to a place from which it was to be collected by B, references in subsections (6) and (7) to its final delivery are to be read as its supply to B from that place.
(10) In subsection (8) “locker” means a lockable container to which the package is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes changes to the defences available to a person who sells crossbows etc to under 18s, in contravention of section 1 of the Crossbows Act 1987, where the sale is made remotely (e.g. online).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 70
Delivery of crossbows
“In the Crossbows Act 1987, after section 1B (inserted by section (Remote sale and letting of crossbows)) insert—
‘1C Offence of seller delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises in England or Wales
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets on hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”), and
(b) A and B are not in each other's presence at the time of the sale.
(2) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—
(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales, or
(b) arranges for its delivery to residential premises in England or Wales.
(3) A commits an offence if, for the purposes of supplying the crossbow or part of a crossbow to B, A—
(a) delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to a locker in England or Wales, or
(b) arranges for its delivery to a locker in England or Wales.
(4) In subsection (3) “locker” means a lockable container to which the crossbow or part of a crossbow is delivered with a view to its collection by B, or a person acting on behalf of B, in accordance with arrangements made between A and B.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(6) The “maximum term for summary offences”, in relation to an offence, means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.
1D Defences to offences under section 1C
(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(2)(a) to show that the delivery conditions were met.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(2)(b) to show that—
(a) the arrangement required the person with whom it was made not to finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow unless the delivery conditions were met, and
(b) the person charged with the offence took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the crossbow or part of a crossbow would not be finally delivered unless the delivery conditions were met.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1C(3) to show that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(4) For the purposes of this section the delivery conditions are that—
(a) the person (“P”) into whose hands the crossbow or part of a crossbow was finally delivered showed the person delivering it an identity document issued to P, and
(b) on the basis of that document a reasonable person would have been satisfied—
(i) that P was over 18, and
(ii) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire was an individual, that P was that individual.
(5) “Identity document” has the same meaning as in section 1B(5).
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under section 1C.
1E Offence of delivery business delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to residential premises in England and Wales on behalf of UK seller
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets for hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),
(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is within the United Kingdom at that time,
(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,
(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows, and
(e) pursuant to the arrangement, C finally delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person other than an individual is within the United Kingdom at any time if the person carries on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.
(3) C commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.
(4) A person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to residential premises in England or Wales on behalf of C commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met.
(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show that—
(a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met, or
(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a crossbow or part of a crossbow.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for other defences for a person charged with an offence under this section.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
1F Offence of delivery business delivering crossbows or parts of crossbows to premises in England and Wales on behalf of non-UK seller
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a person (“A”) sells or lets for hire a crossbow or part of a crossbow to another person (“B”),
(b) A and B are not in each other’s presence at the time of the sale or letting on hire and A is outside the United Kingdom at that time,
(c) before the sale or letting on hire A entered into an arrangement with a person (“C”) by which C agreed to deliver crossbows or parts of crossbows for A,
(d) C was aware when they entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of crossbows or parts of crossbows, and
(e) pursuant to the arrangement, C finally delivers the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England and Wales.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person other than an individual is outside the United Kingdom at any time if the person does not carry on a business of selling articles of any kind from premises in any part of the United Kingdom at that time.
(3) C commits an offence if, when they finally deliver the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England or Wales, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.
(4) Any person finally delivering the crossbow or part of a crossbow to premises in England or Wales on behalf of C commits an offence if, when they deliver it, they do not deliver it into the hands of a person who—
(a) is aged 18 or over, and
(b) if the person to whom the crossbow or part of the crossbow was sold or let on hire is an individual, is that individual.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to show that the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met.
(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (4) to show that—
(a) the delivery conditions (within the meaning of section 1D(4)) were met, or
(b) the person did not know, and a reasonable person would not have known, that the person was delivering a crossbow or part of a crossbow.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause creates offences relating to delivery of crossbows to premises following a remote sale equivalent to the offences relating to knives in sections 38 to 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 71
Sale and delivery of crossbows: supplementary provision
“(1) After section 1F of the Crossbows Act 1987 (inserted by section (Delivery of crossbows)) insert—
‘1G Interpretation of sections 1B to 1F
(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1B to 1F.
(2) A person (“A”) is not in the presence of another person (“B”) at any time if—
(a) where A is an individual, A or a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time;
(b) where A is not an individual, a person acting on behalf of A is not in the presence of B at that time.
(3) “Residential premises” means premises used solely for residential purposes.
(4) The circumstances where premises are not residential premises include, in particular, where a person carries on a business from the premises.
(5) A person charged with an offence is taken to have shown a matter if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.’
(2) After section 6 of the Crossbows Act 1987 insert—
‘6A Regulations
(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument.
(2) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations under section 1D(6) or 1E(7) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) In section 66(1) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (guidance on offences relating to offensive weapons etc), after paragraph (ga) (inserted by section (Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales) insert—
“(gb) any of sections 1 to 3 of the Crossbows Act 1987 (sale etc of crossbows) as they have effect in relation to England and Wales,”.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of the new sections added to the Crossbows Act 1987 by NC69 and NC70 and extends the guidance-making power in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to cover offences under the Crossbows Act 1987.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 72
“Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers”
“(1) For the purposes of this Chapter—
(a) a ‘relevant search service’ is a search service other than an exempt service;
(b) a ‘relevant user-to-user service’ is a user-to-user service other than an exempt service.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘search service’ and ‘user-to-user service’ have the same meanings as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (the ‘2023 Act’) (see, in particular, section 3 of that Act).
(3) The following are exempt services for the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a) a service of a kind that is described in any of the following paragraphs of Schedule 1 to the 2023 Act (certain services exempt from regulation under that Act)—
(i) paragraph 1 or 2 (email, SMS and MMS services);
(ii) paragraph 3 (services offering one-to-one live aural communications);
(iii) paragraph 4 (limited functionality services);
(iv) paragraph 5 (services which enable combinations of user-generated content);
(v) paragraph 7 or 8 (internal business services);
(vi) paragraph 9 (services provided by public bodies);
(vii) paragraph 10 (services provided by persons providing education or childcare), or
(b) a service of a kind that is described in Schedule 2 to the 2023 Act (services that include regulated provider pornographic content).
(4) This Chapter does not apply in relation to a part of a relevant search service, or a part of a relevant user-to-user service, if the 2023 Act does not apply to that part of the service by virtue of section 5(1) or (2) of that Act.
(5) In this Chapter, ‘service provider’ means a provider of a relevant user-to-user service or a provider of a relevant search service.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause, which together with NC73, NC74, NC75, NC76, NC77, NC78, NC79, NC80, NC81, NC82, NC83, NC84, NC85, NC86 and NS1 are expected to form a new Chapter of Part 2 of the Bill, defines key terms used in the new Chapter.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 73
Coordinating officer
“(1) The Secretary of State must designate a member of a relevant police force or a National Crime Agency officer as the coordinating officer for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2) The coordinating officer may delegate any of the officer’s functions under this Chapter (to such extent as the officer may determine) to another member of a relevant police force or National Crime Agency officer.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to designate a “coordinating officer” to perform the functions conferred on that officer under the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 74
Notice requiring appointment of content manager
“(1) The coordinating officer may give a service provider a notice (an ‘appointment notice’) requiring the provider—
(a) either to—
(i) appoint an individual who meets the conditions in subsection (2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, or
(ii) if there is no such individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer, and
(b) to provide the coordinating officer with the required information.
(2) The conditions are that the individual—
(a) plays a significant role in—
(i) the making of decisions about how a whole or substantial part of the service provider’s activities are to be managed or organised, or
(ii) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities, and
(b) is habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) ‘Required information’ means—
(a) the contact details of any content manager appointed;
(b) an email address, or details of another means of contacting the service provider rapidly which is readily available, that may be used for the purpose of giving the provider a notice under this Chapter;
(c) information identifying the relevant user-to-user services, or (as the case may be) the relevant search services, provided by the provider.
(4) An appointment notice must—
(a) specify the period before the end of which the service provider must comply with the notice, and
(b) explain the potential consequences of the service provider failing to do so (see section (Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty)).
(5) The period specified under subsection (4)(a) must be at least seven days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to require a service provider to appoint a senior executive as their “content manager” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72 or to confirm that there is no-one who meets the appointment conditions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 75
Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice,
(b) the provider has confirmed to the officer (in accordance with the appointment notice or under section (Replacement of content manager)(5)(b)), that there is no individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), and
(c) at any time within the period of two years beginning with the day on which that confirmation was given, there is an individual who meets those conditions.
(2) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the first day on which there is an individual who meets those conditions—
(a) appoint such an individual as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and
(b) provide the coordinating officer with the content manager’s contact details.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause requires a service provider that at any time could not appoint a senior executive as its content manager when required to do so (because there was no-one who met the appointment conditions) to make an appointment if, following a change in circumstances within 2 years, there is someone who meets the conditions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 76
Replacement of content manager
“(1) This section applies where a service provider has appointed an individual as the provider’s content manager (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances) or this section).
(2) The service provider may replace the provider’s content manager by appointing another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s new content manager for the purposes of this Chapter.
(3) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment is made under subsection (2), provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details.
(4) If the individual appointed as a service provider’s content manager ceases to meet any of the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2), the appointment ceases to have effect.
(5) The service provider must, before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which an appointment ceases to have effect under subsection (4)—
(a) either—
(i) appoint another individual who meets the conditions in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(2) as the provider’s content manager for the purposes of this Chapter, and
(ii) provide the coordinating officer with the new content manager’s contact details, or
(b) if there is no longer such an individual, confirm that is the case to the coordinating officer.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes provision for the appointment by a service provider of a replacement content manager, including in a case where the original content manager ceases to meet the appointment conditions (and so that appointment ceases to have effect).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 77
Duty to notify changes in required information
“(1) This section applies where a service provider has, in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances)(2)(b) or (Replacement of content manager)(5)(a)(ii)provided the coordinating officer with required information.
(2) The service provider must give notice to the coordinating officer of any change in the required information.
(3) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred.
(4) The notice must be given before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the change occurred.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause requires a service provider that has given the coordinating officer required information (as defined in NC74) to inform the officer of any changes in that information.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 78
Failure to comply with content manager requirements: civil penalty
“(1) This section applies if the coordinating officer has given a service provider an appointment notice and—
(a) the period specified in the notice as mentioned in (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(4)(a) has expired without the provider having complied with the notice,
(b) the provider has failed to comply with a requirement under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances), (Replacement of content manager) or (Duty to notify changes in required information),
(c) the provider, in purported compliance with a requirement to provide, or give notice of a change in, required information (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances)(2)(b), (Replacement of content manager) or (Duty to notify changes in required information)(2)) makes a statement that is false in a material particular, or
(d) the provider makes a statement that is false in giving the confirmation mentioned in section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(1)(a)(ii) or (Replacement of content manager)(5)(b).
(2) The coordinating officer may give the service provider a notice (a ‘penalty notice’) requiring the provider to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding £60,000.
(3) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (2).
(4) Schedule (Civil penalties for service providers and content managers) makes further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this Chapter.” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause confers a power on the coordinating officer to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider that fails to comply with various requirements imposed by an appointment notice or under NC75, NC76 and NC77.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 79
Unlawful weapons content
“(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in England and Wales if it is content that constitutes—
(a) an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc a dangerous weapon),
(b) an offence under section 1 or 2 of the Knives Act 1997 (marketing of knives as suitable for combat etc and related publications), or
(c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of England and Wales (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc an offensive weapon).
(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Scotland if it is content that constitutes—
(a) an offence within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or
(b) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Scotland.
(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, content is ‘unlawful weapons content’ in Northern Ireland if it is content that constitutes—
(a) an offence under Article 53 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160) (N.I. 24) (offering to sell, hire, loan or give away etc certain knives),
(b) an offence within subsection (1)(b), or
(c) an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under the law of Northern Ireland.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause defines “unlawful weapons content” for the purposes of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory note for NC72.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 80
Content removal notices
“(1) This section applies where an authorised officer is satisfied that content—
(a) present on a relevant user-to-user service, or
(b) which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service;
is unlawful weapons content in a relevant part of the United Kingdom.
(2) The authorised officer may give a content removal notice to—
(a) the provider of the relevant user-to-user service, or
(b) the provider of the relevant search service.
(3) If the authorised officer gives a content removal notice to a service provider in a case where the coordinating officer has the contact details of the provider’s content manager, the authorised officer may also give the notice to that manager.
(4) A content removal notice is a notice requiring the service provider and (if applicable) the provider’s content manager (each a ‘recipient’) to secure that—
(a) the content to which it relates is removed (see section (Interpretation of Chapter)(2)), and
(b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.
(5) A content removal notice must—
(a) identify the content to which it relates;
(b) explain the authorised officer’s reasons for considering that the content is unlawful weapons content in the relevant part (or parts) of the United Kingdom;
(c) explain that the notice must be complied with before the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time the notice is given;
(d) explain that each recipient has the right to request a review of the decision to give the notice and how a request is to be made (see section (Content removal notices: review));
(e) set out the potential consequences of failure to comply with the notice;
(f) contain the authorised officer’s contact details;
(g) be in such form, and contain such further information, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(6) The authorised officer may withdraw a content removal notice from a recipient by notifying the recipient to that effect (but withdrawal of a notice does not prevent a further content removal notice from being given under this section, whether or not in relation to the same content as the withdrawn notice).
(7) In this section—
‘authorised officer’ means—
(a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the force, or
(b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised for the purposes of this section by the Director General of the National Crime Agency;
‘relevant part of the United Kingdom’ means—
(a) where the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force in England and Wales, England and Wales;
(b) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Scotland, Scotland;
(c) where the authorised officer is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland;
(d) where the authorised officer is a member of the Ministry of Defence Police or a National Crime Agency officer, any part of the United Kingdom.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause confers power on the police or an officer of the National Crime Agency to give a service provider and (if there is one) the provider’s content manager a notice requiring them to remove unlawful weapons content from the services they provide.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 81
Content removal notices: review
“(1) A person who is given a content removal notice (a ‘recipient’) may, before the end of the initial 48-hour period, request a review of the decision to give the notice.
(2) A request under subsection (1) is to be made by the recipient giving—
(a) a notice (a ‘review notice’) to the authorised officer, and
(b) a copy of the review notice to the other recipient (if applicable).
(3) The grounds on which a recipient may request a review include, in particular, that—
(a) content to which the notice relates is not unlawful weapons content;
(b) content to which the notice relates is insufficiently identified for the recipient to be able to take the action required by the notice;
(c) the provider that received the notice is not, in fact, the provider of the relevant user-to-user service or relevant search service to which the notice relates;
(d) the individual who received the notice as the service provider’s content manager is not, in fact, that provider’s content manager;
(e) the notice was otherwise not given in accordance with this Chapter.
(4) On receipt of a review notice, a review of the decision to give the content removal notice must be carried out—
(a) if the authorised officer is a member of a relevant police force, by another member of that force who is of a higher rank;
(b) if the authorised officer is a National Crime Agency officer, by another officer who holds a more senior position in the Agency.
The individual carrying out the review is referred to in this section as ‘the reviewing officer’.
(6) On completing the review or (in a case where two review notices are given) both reviews the reviewing officer must, in respect of each recipient, either—
(a) confirm in full the decision to give the content removal notice,
(b) confirm the decision to give the notice, but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, or
(c) withdraw the notice.
(7) The reviewing officer must give each recipient a notice (a ‘decision notice’)—
(a) setting out the outcome of the review or reviews, and
(b) giving reasons.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes provision for the police or the NCA to review the decision to give a service provider or their content manager a content removal notice under NC80 where the recipient of the notice requests a review.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 82
Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content
“(1) This section applies where the reviewing officer—
(a) has carried out a review or reviews under section (Content removal notices: review), and
(b) confirms the decision to give the content removal notice to the service provider, the provider’s content manager or both of them (in each case whether as mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) of that section).
(2) If the reviewing officer confirms in full the decision to give the content removal notice, the decision notice must require its recipient to secure that—
(a) the content to which the content removal notice relates is removed, and
(b) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.
(3) If the officer confirms the decision to give the content removal notice but in relation to only some of the content to which it relates, the decision notice must—
(a) identify the content to which the confirmation relates (the ‘confirmed content’), and
(b) require its recipient to secure that—
(i) the confirmed content is removed, and
(ii) confirmation of that fact is given to the authorised officer.
(4) A decision notice within subsection (2) or (3) must specify the period before the end of which the notice must be complied with, and that period must be whichever of the following is the longest—
(a) the period of 24 hours beginning with the time the decision notice is given;
(b) the period—
(i) beginning with the time the review notice or, if there was more than one, the first review notice, was given under section (Content removal notices: review), and
(ii) ending with the end of the initial 48-hour period.
(5) In this section, ‘reviewing officer’ has the same meaning as in section (Content removal notices: review).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause provides for the police or NCA, following a review under NC81 which confirms (in full or in part) the decision to give a content removal notice, to give the service provider or content manager a decision notice requiring the removal of the unlawful weapons content concerned.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 83
Failure to comply with content removal notice or decision notice: civil penalties
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
(a) a content removal notice has been given to a service provider, or to both a service provider and the provider’s content manager, in accordance with section (Content removal notices), and
(b) the initial 48-hour period has expired without the notice having been complied with or a review notice having been given.
(2) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice—
(a) to the service provider, or
(b) if the provider’s content manager also received the content removal notice, to the content manager or to both of them.
(3) Subsection (4) applies where, following a review or reviews under section (Content removal notices: review)—
(a) a decision notice has been given to the service provider or to both the provider and the provider’s content manager in accordance with section (Decision notices requiring removal of unlawful weapons content)(2) or (3) confirming the decision to give the content removal notice, and
(b) the period specified in the decision notice under subsection (4) of that section has expired without that notice having been complied with.
(4) A senior authorised officer of the issuing force may give a penalty notice—
(a) to the service provider, or
(b) if the provider’s content manager also received the decision notice, to the content manager or to both of them.
(5) In this section a ‘penalty notice’ means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty—
(a) where the recipient is a service provider, of an amount not exceeding £60,000;
(b) where the recipient is a service provider’s content manager, of an amount not exceeding £10,000.
(6) In order to take account of changes in the value of money the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for a sum for the time being specified in subsection (5).
(7) See Schedule (Civil penalties for service providers and content managers) for further provision in connection with penalty notices given under this section.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause confers a power on the police or NCA to impose a monetary penalty of up to £60,000 on a service provider or up to £10,000 on a content manager if they have failed to comply with a content removal notice or a decision notice.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 84
Guidance
“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the persons mentioned in subsection (2) about the exercise of their functions under this Chapter.
(2) The persons are—
(a) the chief officer, and any other member, of a relevant police force;
(b) the Director General of the National Crime Agency and any other officer of the Agency.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance or revisions issued under this section.
(5) A person mentioned in subsection (2) must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function under this Chapter.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause confers power on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police and the National Crime Agency about the exercise of their functions under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 85
Notices
“(1) This section applies in relation to any notice that must or may be given to a person under this Chapter.
(2) A notice may be given to a person by—
(a) delivering it by hand to the person,
(b) leaving it at the person’s proper address,
(c) sending it by post to the person at that address, or
(d) sending it by email to the person’s email address.
(3) A notice to a body corporate may be given to any officer of that body.
(4) A notice to a partnership may be given to any partner or to a person who has the control or management of the partnership business.
(5) A notice sent by first class post to an address in the United Kingdom, is treated as given at noon on the second working day after the day of posting, unless the contrary is proved.
(6) A notice sent by email is treated as given at the time it is sent unless the contrary is proved.
(7) In this section—
‘director’ includes any person occupying the position of a director, by whatever name called;
‘email address’, in relation to a person, means—
(a) an email address provided by that person for the purposes of this Chapter, or
(b) any email address published for the time being by that person as an address for contacting that person;
‘officer’, in relation to an entity, includes a director, a manager, a partner, the secretary or, where the affairs of the entity are managed by its members, a member;
‘proper address’ means—
(a) in the case of an entity, the address of the entity’s registered office or principal office;
(b) in any other case, the person’s last known address;
‘working day’ means any day other than—
(a) a Saturday or Sunday, or
(b) a day that is a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.
(8) In the case of an entity registered or carrying on business outside the United Kingdom, or with offices outside the United Kingdom, the reference in subsection (7), in the definition of ‘proper address’, to the entity’s principal office includes—
(a) its principal office in the United Kingdom, or
(b) if the entity has no office in the United Kingdom, any place in the United Kingdom at which the person giving the notice believes, on reasonable grounds, that the notice will come to the attention of any director or other officer of that entity.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause makes provision about the ways in which a notice can be given, and the time at which a notice is to be treated as given, under the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 86
Interpretation of Chapter
“(1) In this Chapter—
‘appointment notice’ has the meaning given by section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(1);
‘authorised officer’ in relation to a content removal notice, means the member of a relevant police force, or officer of the National Crime Agency, who gave the notice;
‘chief officer’—
(a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, means the chief officer of police of the force;
(b) in relation to any other relevant police force, means the chief constable of that force;
‘contact details’, in relation to an individual, means the individual’s—
(a) full name;
(b) telephone number;
(c) email address;
(d) residential address, or other service address, in the United Kingdom;
‘content’ has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act);
‘content manager’, in relation to a service provider, means the individual for the time being appointed as the content manager of the provider (whether in accordance with an appointment notice or under section (Appointment of content manager following change of circumstances) or (Replacement of content manager));
‘content removal notice’ has the meaning given by section (Content removal notices)(4);
‘coordinating officer’ means the individual designated as such under section (Coordinating officer)(1);
‘decision notice’ means a notice given under section (Content removal notices: review)(7);
‘encounter’, in relation to content, has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 236(1) of that Act);
‘entity’ has the same meaning as in that Act (see section 236(1) of that Act);
‘initial 48-hour period’, in relation to a content removal notice, means the 48-hour period specified in the notice as mentioned in section (Content removal notices)(5)(c);
‘issuing force’—
(a) in relation to a content removal notice given by a member of a relevant police force, means that force;
(b) in relation to a content removal notice given by a National Crime Agency officer, means the National Crime Agency;
‘relevant police force’—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, means—
(i) a police force in England and Wales, or
(ii) the Ministry of Defence Police;
(b) in relation to Scotland, means—
(i) the Police Service of Scotland, or
(ii) the Ministry of Defence Police;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means—
(i) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or
(ii) the Ministry of Defence Police;
‘relevant search service’ and
‘relevant user-to-user service’ have the meanings given by section (‘Relevant user-to-user services’, ‘relevant search services’ and ‘service providers’);
‘required information’ has the meaning given by section (Notice requiring appointment of content manager)(3);
‘review notice’ has the meaning given by section (Content removal notices: review)(2)(a);
‘search content’ and ‘search results’ have the meanings given by section 57 of the Online Safety Act 2023;
‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to a relevant police force, means—
(a) the chief officer of the relevant police force, or
(b) a member of the relevant police force of at least the rank of inspector authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the chief officer;
‘senior authorised officer’, in relation to the National Crime Agency, means—
(a) the Director General of the National Crime Agency, or
(b) an officer of the Agency who—
(i) holds a position in the Agency the seniority of which is at least equivalent to that of the rank of inspector in a relevant police force, and
(ii) is authorised for the purposes of this Chapter by the Director General;
‘service address’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 1141 of the Companies Act 2006);
‘service provider’ has the meaning given by section (‘Relevant user-to-user services’, ‘relevant search services’ and ‘service providers’).
(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a reference to ‘removing’ content—
(a) in relation to content present on a relevant user-to-user service, is a reference to any action that results in the content being removed from the service, or being permanently hidden, so users of the service in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content cannot encounter it;
(b) in relation to content which may be encountered in or via search results of a relevant search service, is a reference to taking measures designed to secure, so far as possible, that the content is no longer included in the search content of the service that is available in any part of the United Kingdom in which the content is unlawful weapons content;
and related expressions are to be read accordingly.
(3) The following provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 apply for the purposes of this Chapter as they apply for the purposes of that Act—
(a) section 226 (determining who is the provider of a particular user-to-user service or search service);
(b) section 236(5) and (6) (references to content being present).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause contains definitions of terms used in the new Chapter mentioned in the explanatory statement to NC72.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 87
Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) Before section 28 (dangerous cycling) insert—
‘27A Causing death by dangerous cycling
A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling
(1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
(2) In this section “serious injury” means—
(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and
(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’
(3) In section 28—
(a) in subsection (1) for ‘on a road dangerously’ substitute ‘dangerously on a road or other public place’;
(b) omit subsections (2) and (3).
(4) After section 28 insert—
‘28A Meaning of “dangerous cycling”
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 27A, 27B and 28.
(2) A person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if) the condition in subsection (3) or (4) is met.
(3) The condition in this subsection is met if—
(a) the way that the person rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(4) The condition in this subsection is met if it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding the cycle in its current state would be dangerous.
(5) In determining the state of a cycle for the purposes of subsection (4), regard may be had (among other things) to—
(a) whether the cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations under section 81 (regulation of brakes, bells etc, on pedal cycles);
(b) anything attached to or carried on the cycle and the manner in which it is attached or carried.
(6) In determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to—
(a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and
(b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
(7) References in this section to something being “dangerous” are references to it resulting in danger of—
(a) injury to any person, or
(b) serious damage to property.
28B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling
A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.
28C Causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling
(1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.
(2) In this section ‘serious injury’ means—
(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and
(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.’
(5) In section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling)—
(a) after ‘a road’ insert ‘or other public place’;
(b) after ‘the road’ insert ‘or place’.
(6) After section 29 insert—
‘29A Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, cycling
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 28B, 28C and 29.
(2) A person is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention if (and only if) the way the person cycles falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist.
(3) In determining what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard is to be had both to—
(a) the circumstances of which the person could be expected to be aware (taking account of, if relevant to the case, the age of the accused), and
(b) the circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
(4) A person (A) is to be regarded as cycling without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by A’s cycling.’
(7) The table in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences) is amended as follows.
(8) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 27’ insert in columns 1 to 4—
(9) After the entry relating to ‘RTA section 28’ insert in columns 1 to 4—
This new clause creates new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling with penalties corresponding to the penalties applicable to the existing offences for causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving. It also extends the existing offences of dangerous, and careless or inconsiderate, cycling so as to apply to cycling that takes place on public places that are not roads.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. No pedestrian or other road user should ever feel unsafe. Their safety is a priority for this Government and I know that such sentiments will be shared across the House. Like all other road users, cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of the safety of other road users, and that is reflected in the highway code. There are already existing offences within the Road Traffic Act 1988 to prohibit dangerous and careless cycling, which carry a maximum penalty of £2,500 and a £1,000 fine respectively.
In rare, tragic cases that have occurred in recent years, where there has been a death or serious injury caused by a cyclist, the drawbacks of relying on the current offences—notably, the Offences against the Person Act 1861—have been clear. Unlike the penalties available for motoring offences that have the same tragic outcome, that offence carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. The Government do not believe that those current penalties are appropriate in cases where a cyclist’s behaviour is dangerous or careless and results in the death or serious injury of another person.
Therefore, new clause 87 introduces new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling, making our streets safer for pedestrians and other road users. Those causing death by dangerous cycling or careless cycling will face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those who cause serious injury will face a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or two years’ imprisonment respectively. Government amendment 82 extends these new offences to England, Wales and Scotland.
These penalties ensure that there is parity across the existing framework of motoring-related offences. All road users, whether they are drivers or cyclists, whose behaviour results in the death or serious injury of another road user will face the same penalties. To be clear, it is not our intention to discourage cycling; it is one of this Government’s broader objectives to promote cycling for its health, economic and environmental benefits. However, while the majority of cyclists are responsible and cycle safely, there are rare instances where victims have been seriously or fatally injured by irresponsible and dangerous cyclist behaviour. As a result, these offences will ensure that people who cause serious or fatal harm because of their reckless cycling behaviour are subject to appropriate punishment.
Before commending these measures to the Committee, I pay personal tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and to Matthew Briggs, who have campaigned tirelessly for these changes. I had the privilege of meeting Matthew Briggs. We discussed the need for this new offence, and how the devastating impact of the death of his wife Kim in 2016, due to a reckless cyclist, shows the need to create these new offences. For that reason, I commend these measures to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
The devastating consequences of road traffic collisions caused by reckless or dangerous behaviour are not limited to motor vehicles. In recent years, a small but significant number of cases have emerged where pedestrians and other vulnerable road users have been seriously injured or even killed as a result of dangerous or careless cycling. This new clause rightly recognises that, while the majority of cyclists are law-abiding and responsible, the law must be equipped to deal appropriately with the minority who behave recklessly and put others at grave risk.
Currently, there is a glaring gap in the legal framework: while motorists who cause death or serious injury through dangerous or careless driving face severe legal consequences, no equivalent provision exists for cyclists. This clause introduces parity in accountability, ensuring that victims and their families are not left feeling that justice is denied simply because the vehicle involved was a bicycle rather than a car.
New clause 87, alongside Government amendment 82, ensures that the legal definitions of dangerous and careless cycling reflect the realities of modern shared road and path usage, including in public places beyond traditional roadways. With the increase in cycling on footpaths, shared spaces and pedestrianised zones, it is vital that the law keeps pace and applies wherever the public might be put at risk.
Importantly, the introduction of these offences does not criminalise cycling itself; it targets only those rare but serious cases where a cyclist’s conduct falls far below that which would be expected of competent and considerate road users. It draws on the well-established legal test from dangerous and careless driving legislation, helping to ensure that the proposed offences are proportionate, fair and clearly understood.
As Members will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has long campaigned for a change to the law regarding responsible cycling, and I pay tribute to his work to deliver this improvement to public safety. The last Government confirmed that they would adopt an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would have resulted in a change comparable to the one we see today.
Much of this would not have been possible without the sustained efforts of people such as Matthew Briggs, who, in 2016, tragically lost his wife Kim Briggs, aged just 44, after she was hit by a cyclist riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes. She sustained catastrophic head injuries and sadly died a week later. Unfortunately, Kim is just one of many victims, and Matthew’s is just one of many families harmed by these situations, but he has campaigned for this change in the law after tragically losing a loved one. I pay tribute to Matt and his campaign for justice, and hope that this change effectively bridges the gap in the law that so many have highlighted.
Finally, this measure sends a strong message that all road users, regardless of their mode of transport, are responsible for the safety of others. It underlines the seriousness with which Parliament treats the loss of life or serious injuries, promotes responsible cycling, and contributes to safer public spaces for everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 87 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 88
Places of worship: restriction on protests
“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12(1) (imposing conditions on public processions)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (ab) omit ‘or’;
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ‘or
(c) in the case of a procession in England and Wales, the procession is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—
(i) accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or
(ii) carrying out religious activities at that place of worship,’.
(3) In section 14(1) (imposing conditions on public assemblies)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (ab) omit ‘or’;
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ‘or
(c) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the assembly is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—
(i) accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or
(ii) carrying out religious activities at that place of worship.’
(4) In section 14ZA(1) (imposing conditions on one-person protests)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (a) omit ‘or’;
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert ‘or
(c) the protest is in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from—
(i) accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or
(ii) carrying out religious activities at that place of worship.’”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause gives the police power to impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests that may intimidate people and deter those people from accessing a place of worship for carrying out religious activities or from carrying out religious activities there. It does not provide power to impose conditions where those who may be intimidated are using a place of worship for other purposes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 89—Powers of senior officers to impose conditions on protests.
Government new clause 90—Amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police.
Dame Diana Johnson
New clauses 88 to 90 further update our public order legislation to reflect operational experience. It is important that the legislation keeps pace with the operational realities faced by police on the ground.
In the wake of the events in Israel and Gaza on 7 October 2023, we have seen a wave of large-scale protests across the United Kingdom. Although the right to protest is of course a cornerstone of our democracy and the majority of demonstrations have been peaceful, we cannot ignore the very real impact that some of the gatherings have had on religious communities. We have heard troubling reports of people of all faiths feeling too intimidated to attend places of worship, and of services being cancelled due to the proximity and nature of the protests.
New clause 88 therefore seeks to provide religious communities with better protection from intimidation caused by protests within the vicinity of their place of worship. The police have powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to manage protests where there is serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation. However, the powers often do not capture the types of harm currently being experienced by religious communities, especially where the intimidation is not deliberate, but is none the less very real for those affected.
The intention of the new clause is to strengthen the police’s powers to manage intimidatory public processions, public assemblies or one-person protests near places of worship, specifically by allowing police to impose conditions where they reasonably believe that the procession, assembly or protest may result in the intimidation of and deter those seeking to access places of worship.
New clause 88 achieves that by creating a new threshold in sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the 1986 Act, under which the police can impose conditions on public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests. To be clear, it does not ban protests outright, but it enables the police to use this threshold to consider the appropriate time, location or routing that a protest should have in order to avoid intimidating those wishing to practise their faith at their place of worship.
The new clause will allow the police to assess whether a protest may create an intimidating atmosphere that could deter people from accessing places of worship to carry out religious activities or from conducting religious activities there, regardless of whether the organisers of the protest themselves intended for the protest to have that effect.
I turn to new clause 89. In managing recent protests, the police have relied on their powers under sections 12 and 14 of the 1986 Act to impose those conditions, for example where there is a risk of serious public disorder or serious disruption to the life of the community. However, under the current law, only the most senior officers physically at the scene can impose these conditions on live protests or where people are assembling with a view to take part. That can cause delays, particularly when strategic or tactical commanders, known as the gold and silver commanders, who are often based in off-site control rooms, have better access to intelligence but are unable to impose conditions directly. That can also lead to inconsistencies in how similar protests are managed across different locations, especially when multiple events occur at once.
Policing stakeholders have made it clear that allowing gold and silver commanders to impose conditions remotely, where the statutory thresholds are met, would improve the timeliness, consistency and effectiveness of public order policing. Those commanders typically have the best oversight of unfolding events and are well placed to make informed decisions. New clause 89 therefore amends the 1986 Act to enable gold and silver commanders to exercise powers to impose conditions under sections 12(1) and 14(1) in relation to public processions and assemblies.
Finally, new clause 90 addresses two operational issues raised by the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that public order powers can be used effectively by the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police. First, it amends the definitions in the Public Order Act 1986 to allow the BTP to impose conditions on public assemblies taking place at railway stations. Currently, the law restricts the use of these powers to open-air locations, which limits the BTP’s ability to manage protests in enclosed but high-risk public spaces such as major stations. This change will ensure that the BTP can act appropriately within its jurisdiction across England, Wales and Scotland.
Secondly, the new clause corrects a legislative error made in 2004 that unintentionally prevented the BTP from using section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the existing power to require individuals to remove face coverings. This amendment restores that power. It also empowers the MDP to issue authorisations under section 60AA and section 60 of the 1994 Act to enable MDP officers to exercise powers under these provisions within its jurisdiction, in the same way as territorial police forces.
These are technical but important amendments. They do not expand thresholds or the scope of the powers themselves, but simply ensure that the BTP and MDP can apply them, where appropriate, to keep people safe, particularly in transport hubs and around defence infrastructure. The proposals reflect direct feedback from operational policing and will bring clarity and consistency to the use of public order legislation. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
New clause 88 rightly seeks to strengthen protections for the freedom of religion and belief by ensuring that individuals are not deterred or intimidated from attending or participating in religious worship due to protests taking place in the vicinity of places of worship. It balances the right to peaceful protest with the fundamental right of individuals to practise their faith without fear or obstruction. Places of worship are not just buildings; they are sanctuaries for reflection, community and faith. When people are intimidated from entering these spaces or carrying out religious observance because of aggressive or targeted protests, it undermines not only their personal freedoms, but the broader principle of religious tolerance.
This new clause helps to ensure that those attending religious services can do so without being subject to harassment or psychological pressure. The provision is not a ban on protests: it enables the police to impose conditions, not prohibitions, on processions, assemblies and even one-person protests that occur in the vicinity of a place of worship, where such demonstrations risk intimidating individuals of reasonable firmness and deterring from participating in religious activities. The threshold is carefully defined to target behaviour that causes harm, while still protecting legitimate expression of opinion.
While some may easily dismiss this new clause, it is important to recognise that there are real-world examples where people believe that protests are being used to undermine the ability to worship. For example, recently in Westcliff-on-Sea, a protest organised by Action for Palestine, which the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign described as “not constructive”, took place on Shabbat during the final week of Pesach, in a Jewish neighbourhood where many residents would be travelling to and from the synagogue. The local rabbi said:
“There were quite a few people in the community who were so intimidated that they decided to go to their parents’ in London for the weekend, to get away completely.”
Others decided to attend one of the other orthodox synagogues in the area, such as the Westcliff Charedi synagogue, and ending up having to walk a mile to make Saturday’s two services. While I would not expect the Minister to comment on the specifics of whether that protest would constitute a breach of the new clause in question, it highlights how people practising their religion have felt targeted by particular protests.
Given the rise in targeted demonstrations, whether based on religion, race or identity, this new clause ensures that the law is responsive to the realities of contemporary protest dynamics. It draws on the existing powers under the Public Order Act 1986, applying them specifically in a context where dignity, privacy and religious freedom deserve particular safeguarding. Ultimately, this new clause is a proportionate and necessary step to preserve the peaceful co-existence of rights: the right to worship freely and the right to protest responsibly. It affirms that places of worship must remain accessible and free from intimidation for all communities.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. How will she ensure that new clause 88 strikes the right balance between protecting freedom of religion and upholding the right to protest under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights? What guidance will be provided to the police to assess whether a protest
“may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”?
How will subjectivity be mitigated to avoid arbitrary enforcement? Has the Home Office identified particular recent incidents that demonstrate a pressing need for the power? How frequently does the Minister expect it to be used?
David Burton-Sampson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I will always defend the right to protest, but it must be appropriate. Having one’s voice heard must not come at the expense of intimidating those who are peacefully worshipping.
As the hon. Member for Stockton West mentioned, only recently in Southend my constituents were affected by a march that was purposely routed past a place of worship at the time when people were due to be leaving that place of worship. We have heard similar evidence of that happening across the country. Let us be clear: it is not acceptable that people should be intimidated while they go to or from, or are in, their place of worship, whatever their religion. I welcome the new clauses.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the short speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh just made. He has spoken to me about the events in Westcliff-on-Sea and their impact on that community. I was also grateful to the shadow Minister for referencing that incident, because it sets out clearly why the provision in new clause 88 is necessary. I welcome that.
The shadow Minister asked whether we will stop legitimate protests, and somehow put the right to religious worship above the right to protest. I want to make it clear that the new clause does not place the freedom of religion above the right to protest. I think we all agree that the right to protest is an important part of our democracy. The new clause seeks to balance those rights by ensuring that protesters do not unduly intimidate or prevent individuals from accessing places of worship.
Although the right to protest remains key and fundamental, the provisions in the new clause clarify police powers to manage those protests near places of worship, ensuring that the freedom of religion is protected without imposing a blanket restriction on demonstrations. The intent is not to curtail protest rights, but to prevent situations where protests create a hostile environment that discourages religious observance. It is important to note that it applies equally to all faiths and all places of worship, not just, as we started off talking about, a specific religious group.
The shadow Minister raised the resource implications for BTP and MDP. The request to bring forward the provisions was because of the operational needs of those police forces. I am expect that they will be able to deal with any costs arising from new clause 90 from their existing budget. The shadow Minister also mentioned training and making sure that police officers understood the introduction of these provisions. I am sure he agrees that there is extensive training of police officers. With public order in particular, we know that there is a very well-worn path of how officers are trained at the right level, depending on the situation.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting Metropolitan police officers, who do a lot of public order work, down at Gravesend to see that training first hand, and I saw the amount of resource that goes in to ensuring that those officers are equipped and know their rights and how most effectively to use them. The new provisions will be part of the continuation of that training for police officers, alongside the work of the College of Policing. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 88 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 89
Powers of senior officers to impose conditions on protests
“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12 (imposing conditions on public processions)—
(a) in subsection (1), for ‘the’, in the first place it occurs, substitute ‘a’;
(b) in subsection (2)—
(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit ‘the’;
(ii) in paragraph (a) for the words from ‘, the most’ to the end substitute ‘—
(i) the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, or
(ii) in the case of a procession in England and Wales, a police officer authorised by a chief officer of police for the purposes of this subsection, and’.
(3) In section 14 (imposing conditions on public assemblies)—
(a) in subsection (1), for ‘the’, in the first place it occurs, substitute ‘a’;
(b) in subsection (2)—
(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit ‘the’;
(ii) in paragraph (a) for the words from ‘, the most” to the end substitute ‘—
(i) the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, or
(ii) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, a police officer authorised by a chief officer of police for the purposes of this subsection, and’;
(c) in subsection (2ZB), for ‘reference in subsection (2)(b) to a chief officer of police includes’, substitute ‘references in subsection (2) to a chief officer of police include’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause allows the powers in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions on public processions and public assemblies to be exercised by a police officer authorised to do so by a chief officer of police.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 90
Amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police
“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 14A(9) (prohibiting trespassory assemblies), in the definition of ‘land’, after ‘“land”’ insert ‘, except in subsections (4A) to (4C) of this section,’.
(3) In section 16 (interpretation), in the definition of ‘public assembly’, for the words from ‘wholly’ to the end substitute ‘—
(a) wholly or partly open to the air, or
(b) within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 31(1) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003;’.
(4) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In section 60 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of or after violence), after subsection (9A) insert—
‘(9B) So far as they relate to an authorisation by a member of the Ministry of Defence Police—
(a) subsections (1) and (9) have effect as if the references to a locality in a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, and
(b) subsection (1)(aa)(i) has effect as if the reference to a police area were a reference to the places in England and Wales specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.’
(6) In section 60AA (powers to require removal of disguises)—
(a) for subsection (8) substitute—
‘(8) So far as subsections (1), (3) and (6) relate to an authorisation by a member of the British Transport Police Force, those subsections have effect as if the references to a locality or a locality in a a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 31(1)(a) to (f) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
(8A) So far as subsections (1), (3) and (6) relate to an authorisation by a member of the Ministry of Defence Police, those subsections have effect as if the references to a locality or a locality in a police area were references to a place in England and Wales among those specified in section 2(2) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.’;
(b) in subsection (9) omit ‘and “policed premises” each’.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This new clause extends certain powers under Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 to land which is not open to the air; allows Ministry of Defence Police to issue authorisations under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and allows British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police to issue authorisations under section 60AA of that Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 91
Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences
“(1) This section applies where in criminal proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or in proceedings (anywhere) before a service court, a person (‘D’) is charged with a qualifying offence.
(2) An offence is a ‘qualifying offence’ if—
(a) it is alleged to have been committed by D acting in the exercise of functions as an authorised firearms officer,
(b) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence involved the use by D of a lethal barrelled weapon to discharge a conventional round, and
(c) D was, at the time of the alleged offence, authorised by the relevant authority to use that weapon with that round.
(3) The court must—
(a) cause the following information to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, in each case unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so—
(i) D’s name;
(ii) D’s address;
(iii) D’s date of birth;
(b) give a reporting direction (see section (Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions)) in respect of D (if one does not already have effect), unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
(4) The court may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, make an anonymity order (see section (Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders)) in respect of D.
(5) If D is convicted of the offence—
(a) subsections (3) and (4) cease to apply in respect of D, and
(b) any restriction put in place under subsection (3)(a) and any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under this section in respect of D cease to have effect at the time D is sentenced for the offence.
(6) In subsection (1), ‘authorised firearms officer’ means—
(a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised by the relevant chief officer to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable,
(b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised by the Director General of the National Crime Agency to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a National Crime Agency officer,
(c) a member of the Police Service of Scotland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland who—
(i) is provided under section 98 of the Police Act 1996 for the assistance of a police force in England and Wales, and
(ii) is authorised by the relevant authority to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, or
(d) a member of the armed forces who—
(i) is deployed in support of a relevant police force or the National Crime Agency, and
(ii) is authorised by the Secretary of State to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round for the purposes of that deployment.
(7) In this section—
‘conventional round’ means any shot, bullet or other missile other than one designed to be used without its use giving rise to a substantial risk of causing death or serious injury;
‘lethal barrelled weapon’ has the meaning given by section 57(1B) of the Firearms Act 1968;
‘member of the armed forces’ means a person who is subject to service law (see section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) in relation to a member of a relevant police force, the relevant chief officer;
(b) in relation to a National Crime Agency officer, the Director General of the National Crime Agency;
(c) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Scotland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland;
(d) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(e) in relation to a member of the armed forces, the Secretary of State;
‘relevant chief officer’ means—
(a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of police of that police force;
(b) in relation to the British Transport Police Force, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(c) in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
(d) in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Chief Constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
‘relevant police force’ means—
(a) a police force in England and Wales,
(b) the British Transport Police Force,
(c) the Ministry of Defence Police, or
(d) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
‘service court’ means—
(a) the Court Martial, or
(b) the Court Martial Appeal Court.
(8) This section does not apply in relation to proceedings begun before the coming into force of this section.”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause provides for a presumption of anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with (but not convicted of) an offence relating to the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duties
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 92—Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences.
Government new clause 93—Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions.
Government new clause 94—Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders.
Government amendment 83.
Alex Davies-Jones
Currently, in criminal courts, adult defendants do not have a general right to anonymity, which reflects the principle of open justice. However, judges may impose reporting restrictions where the disclosure of identifying information could hinder the administration of justice, or impact fair trial rights. Armed police officers perform a unique and dangerous role. They are trained to use lethal force on behalf of the state to protect the lives of our citizens. Their work requires them to confront situations that demand split-second decisions that can have profound legal and personal ramifications. They respond to major crimes involving high-risk individuals, often linked to organised crime groups. That inherently dangerous role naturally increases the risk of retribution for both officers and their families, which was a risk highlighted by the police accountability review.
The Government’s plan to introduce the measures set out in new clauses 91 to 94 was originally announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23 October. The proposed new clauses address specific concerns raised during the police accountability review, and following the trial of Sergeant Martyn Blake. They will help deliver our commitment to rebuild the confidence of police officers in their vital work to keep the public safe.
Proposed new clause 91 creates a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are charged with offences related to the discharge of their weapon during their official duties. That presumption does not extend to other police officers who use force in their duties or to firearms officers if force is used in the line of duty that does not involve discharging a firearm. The starting point for the court will be that anonymity should be granted in these cases, and that such anonymity will remain in place until the defendant is sentenced.
New clause 91 requires that the court must withhold identifying details from the public during proceedings and give a “reporting direction”. The terms of the reporting direction are set out in new clause 93 and prevent the publication of any material that may lead to the identification of the defendant. New clause 91 also gives the courts statutory powers to ensure that the defendant’s identity is protected in the courtroom, if it is
“in the interests of justice to do so”.
New clause 94 sets out the types of measures that can be used, such as screens or voice modulation. It will be for the court to decide whether these are required.
Judicial discretion is preserved under the new provisions, which enable courts to disclose identifying details or lift reporting restrictions, where considered necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the overall interests of justice.
New clause 92 provides courts with the statutory authority to extend in-court anonymity measures and reporting restrictions beyond sentencing, should the defendant wish to appeal their conviction. However, it does not establish a presumption, nor does it apply if a firearms officer convicted of an offence seeks only to appeal their sentence. When a firearms officer is convicted, their right to anonymity ceases at the point of sentencing. However, the court may order that anonymity continues pending the outcome of an appeal. If the conviction is upheld on appeal, the right to anonymity will cease upon the finalisation of that appeal.
Conversely, when an officer is exonerated, their right to anonymity will continue, allowing them to resume their professional and personal lives without fear of stigma or threats to their safety. Ensuring national safety and security is a top priority for this Government and the role of firearms officers is essential to achieving that. They serve in their difficult and demanding role voluntarily and we cannot expect them to perform their duties effectively without providing adequate safeguards to protect them and their families. Amendment 83 provides for the new clauses to come into force two months after the Bill is passed. I commend the new clauses, and the amendment, to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Government new clauses 91 to 94 provide anonymity protections for authorised firearms officers in legal proceedings involving qualifying offences. New clause 91 ensures that officers charged with offences related to their authorised use of lethal weapons discharging a conventional round will have their personal details withheld and reporting directions issued, unless contrary to justice. Such measures would protect them from public scrutiny and potential threats during sensitive investigations. They would foster officers’ confidence in performing high-risk duties because they would be shielded from premature exposure before conviction.
Government new clause 92 extends the protections to convicted officers, pending appeals. That would allow courts to maintain anonymity if necessary for justice, and would support fair appeal processes by preventing irreversible reputational damage if convictions are overturned.
Government new clauses 93 and 94 provide clear mechanisms for reporting directions and anonymity orders to enforce the protections, while ensuring that judges and juries retain access to the officer’s identity. That balances transparency with safety. As the Minister has said, Members will be all too aware of the case of Sergeant Martyn Blake, who was acquitted in October 2024 of murdering Chris Kaba after a 2022 shooting in London. Blake faced death threats, including a £10,000 bounty, forcing him into hiding and highlighting the need for anonymity to protect officers and their families from retribution during trials.
These measures will help to ensure that officers who act in good faith under dangerous circumstances are protected from such vindictive attacks while the judicial process is under way—as well as ensuring recruitment and retention in firearms roles, and public safety—while also allowing the courts to lift protections when justice demands. Will the Minister comment further on how the Government will ensure that courts balance anonymity protections with the public interest in transparent justice? In particular, what guidance will be provided to courts to assess when anonymity is contrary to the interests of justice?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the tone in which the Opposition spokesperson has presented his comments and the fact that he shares our concern about the need for these new measures. Judges will of course have all relevant information in balancing the need for open justice with the need to protect firearms officers in these specific instances. The measures recognise the exceptional circumstances of defendants in such cases and create a presumption of anonymity. The starting point for the courts will be that anonymity should be granted in such cases, unless it is contrary to justice to do so.
Let me add that open justice and the freedom of the press to report on these cases continue to be important principles of our justice system, and this legislation will respect those key principles. A court may already order anonymity measures or reporting restrictions in a case where it judges that disclosure of a defendant’s identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to life. The measure is being introduced in recognition of the unique responsibilities that firearms officers have, as I have said, and the potential risks associated with their identification during court proceedings. It is really important that judges and the courts get the balance right here, but this measure is absolutely necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 91 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 92
Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences
“(1) This section applies where a person (‘D’) is convicted of a qualifying offence in proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or proceedings (anywhere) before a service court.
(2) The court by or before which D is convicted may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so—
(a) cause any or all of the information mentioned in section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(3)(a)(i) to (iii) to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court;
(b) give a reporting direction in respect of D (see section (Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions));
(c) make an anonymity order in respect of D (see (Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders)).
(3) Any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under subsection (2) ceases to have effect at the end of the appeal period unless, before the end of that period, D brings an appeal against the conviction.
(4) Where, before the end of the appeal period, D brings an appeal against the conviction, the court dealing with the appeal may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so—
(a) cause any or all of the information mentioned in section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(3)(a)(i) to (iii) to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court;
(b) give a reporting direction in respect of D;
(c) make an anonymity order in respect of D.
(5) The court dealing with the appeal must at the earliest opportunity determine the issue of whether to exercise any or all of the powers under subsection (4).
(6) Any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under subsection (2) ceases to have effect upon the making of the determination mentioned in subsection (5) (whether or not the court dealing with the appeal gives a direction or makes an order).
(7) Any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under subsection (4) ceases to have effect if the appeal against conviction is abandoned or dismissed.
(8) In this section—
‘appeal period’ in relation to a person convicted of a qualifying offence, means the period allowed for bringing an appeal against that conviction, disregarding the possibility of an appeal out of time with permission;
‘qualifying offence’ has the meaning given by section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(2).
(9) This section does not apply where the proceedings in which D was convicted were begun before the coming into force of section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences).”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause, which is related to NC91, provides courts with a power to preserve the anonymity of authorised firearms officers convicted of an offence relating to the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duties, pending any appeal against that conviction.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 93
Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions
“(1) A reporting direction, in relation to a person (‘D’) charged with (or convicted of) a qualifying offence, is a direction that no matter relating to D may be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify D as a person who is, or was, alleged to have committed (or who has been convicted of) the offence.
(2) The matters relating to D in relation to which the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in subsection (1)) include in particular—
(a) D’s name,
(b) D’s address,
(c) the identity of any place at which D works, and
(d) any still or moving image of D.
(3) A relevant court may by direction (‘an excepting direction’) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
(4) An excepting direction—
(a) may be given at the time the reporting direction is given or subsequently;
(b) may be varied or revoked by a relevant court.
(5) A reporting direction has effect—
(a) for a fixed period specified in the direction, or
(b) indefinitely,
but this is subject to subsection (5)(b) of section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences) and subsections (3), (6) and (7) of section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences).
(6) A reporting direction may be revoked if a relevant court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
(7) In this section—
‘publication’ has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (see section 63 of that Act);
‘qualifying offence’ has the meaning given by section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(2);
‘relevant court’, in relation to a reporting direction, means—
(a) the court that gave the direction,
(b) the court (if different) that is currently dealing, or that last dealt, with the proceedings in which the direction was given, or
(c) any court dealing with an appeal (including an appeal by way of case stated) arising out of the proceedings in which the direction was given or with any further appeal.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause, which supplements NC91 and NC92, makes provision about reporting directions that may be given under either of those new clauses.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 94
Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders
“(1) An anonymity order, in relation to a person (‘D’) charged with (or convicted of) a qualifying offence, is an order made by a court that requires specified measures to be taken in relation to D to ensure that the identity of D is withheld from the public in proceedings before the court.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the kinds of measures that may be required to be taken in relation to D include measures for securing one or more of the following—
(a) that identifying details relating to D be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court;
(b) that D is screened to any specified extent;
(c) that D’s voice is subjected to modulation to any specified extent.
(3) An anonymity order may not require—
(a) D to be screened to such an extent that D cannot be seen by—
(i) the judge or other members of the court (if any), or
(ii) the jury (if there is one);
(b) D’s voice to be modulated to such an extent that D’s natural voice cannot be heard by any persons within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).
(4) The court that made an anonymity order may vary or discharge the order if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
(5) In this section—
‘qualifying offence’ has the meaning given by section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(2);
‘specified’ means specified in the anonymity order concerned.” —(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause, which supplements NC91 and NC92, makes provision about anonymity orders that may be made under either of those new clauses.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Pornographic content: online harmful content
“(1) A person commits an offence if they publish or allow or facilitate the publishing of pornographic content online which meets the criteria for harmful material under section 368E(3)(a) and section 368E(3)(b) of the Communications Act 2003.
(2) An individual guilty of an offence is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
(3) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of where the offence takes place.
(4) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if any part of the offence takes place in the UK.
(5) The platform on which material that violates the provisions in this section is published can be fined up to £18 million or 10 percent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations appointing one or more public bodies (the appointed body) to monitor and enforce compliance by online platforms with this section.
(7) Regulations made under subsection 6 may provide the appointed body appointed by the Secretary of State with the powers, contained in sections 144 and 146 of the Online Safety Act 2023, to apply to the court for a Service Restriction Order or Access Restriction Order (or both).
(8) The appointed body must, within six months of being appointed by the Secretary of State, lay before Parliament a strategy for monitoring, and enforcing, compliance with the provisions in this section.
(9) The appointed body must lay before Parliament an annual report, outlining the enforcement activity undertaken in relation to this section.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause extends safeguarding requirements for pornography distributed offline to pornography distributed online, making it an offence to publish online harmful material under section 368E(3)(a) and section 368E(3)(b) of the Communications Act 2003.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Pornographic content: duty to verify age—
“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if they publish or allow or facilitate the publishing of pornographic content online where it has not been verified that—
(a) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has given their consent for the content in which they feature to be published or made available by the service; and/or
(b) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has been verified as an adult, and that age verification completed before the content was created and before it was published on the service; and/or
(c) every individual featured in pornographic content on the platform, that had already published on the service when this Act is passed, is an adult.
(2) It is irrelevant under (1a) whether the individual featured in pornographic material has previously given their consent to the relevant content being published, if they have subsequently withdrawn that consent in writing either directly or via an appointed legal representative to—
(a) the platform, or
(b) the relevant regulator where a contact address was not provided by the platform to receive external communications.
(3) If withdrawal of consent under (2) has been communicated in writing to an address issued by the platform or to the relevant public body, the relevant material must be removed by the platform within 24 hours of the communication being sent.
(4) An individual guilty of an offence is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).
(5) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of where the offence takes place.
(6) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if any part of the offence takes place in the UK.
(7) The platform on which material that violates the provisions in this section is published can be fined up to £18 million or 10 percent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
(8) The Secretary of State will appoint one or more public bodies to monitor and enforce compliance by online platforms with this section, with the relevant public body—
(a) granted powers to impose business disruption measures on non-compliant online platforms, including but not limited to service restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an ancillary service, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service); and access restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an access facility, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service).
(b) required to act in accordance with regulations relating to monitoring and enforcement of this section issued by the Secretary of State, including but not limited to providing the Secretary of State with a plan for monitoring and enforcement of the provisions in this section within six months of the bill entering into force, and publishing annual updates on enforcement activity relating to this section.
(9) Internet services hosting pornographic content must make and keep a written record outlining their compliance with the provisions of this section. Such a record must be made summarised in a publicly available statement alongside the publishing requirements in section 81(4) and (5) of the Online Safety Act.”
This new clause makes it a requirement for pornography websites to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their site, and enable withdrawal of consent at any time.
New clause 7—Pornographic Content: Duty to safeguard against illegal content—
“(1) The Online Safety Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80(1), after ‘service’ insert ‘and the illegal content duties outlined in Part 3 of this Act.’”
This new clause extends the illegal content duties in Part 3 of the Act to all internet services which are subject to the regulated provider pornographic content duties in Part 5 of the Act.
New clause 51—Amendment of Possession of extreme pornographic images—
“(1) Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession of extreme pornographic images) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) an act which affects a person’s ability to breath and constitutes battery of that person.’”
This new clause would extend the legal definition of the extreme pornography to include the depiction of non-fatal strangulation.
Matt Vickers
New clause 6 would introduce a safeguard to ensure that all individuals featured in pornographic content online were verified as adults. By requiring verification before content was created and before it was published, the new clause would strengthen protections against the inclusion of minors, whether through coercion, deception or manipulation, and ensure that no content involving under-age individuals was ever legally uploaded in the first place. This is a clear and necessary step to combat child sexual exploitation online, and one that aligns with wider public expectations about safety and decency on digital platforms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) has raised this issue in the House on multiple occasions, reflecting deep concern over the ease with which harmful and unlawful content can slip through the cracks of unregulated online platforms. The new clause takes that concern seriously and would place a firm legal duty on content hosts to verify the age and consent of all individuals involved. It would shift the burden on to platforms—where it rightly belongs—to adopt robust age verification measures and uphold basic standards of safety and legality. The new clause would not only protect children from exploitation, but help to rebuild public trust in the digital environment by demonstrating that the law was keeping pace with technology.
The new clause’s suggestion that pornographic content can be uploaded without the age of the individuals involved being verified is very disturbing. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that and why she feels that the new clause might not be necessary. What is in place to prevent content featuring minors from being uploaded?
The pornography review led by Baroness Bertin has recommended that individuals who feature in pornography should have the right at any time to withdraw their consent to the continued publication of that content. The review states:
“Even if a performer or creator has provided consent for the initial recording and sharing of pornographic content, they should have every right to withdraw consent at a later point…and have that content removed.”
I am keen to hear the Minister’s view and, in particular, why she thinks that that recommendation is wrong.
New clause 51 seeks to update section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 by expanding the definition of extreme pornographic material to include depictions of non-fatal strangulation where it constitutes an act of battery and affects a person’s ability to breathe. The purpose of the new clause is to reflect growing concern from victims’ groups, criminal justice professionals and law enforcement about the increasing normalisation and distribution of such harmful content. Depictions of strangulation, even when simulated, have been linked to increased risk of real-world violence, especially against women. It has been suggested that strangulation is a strong predictor of future domestic homicide and normalising its portrayal in pornography risks reinforcing abusive behaviour.
Currently, the law prohibits extreme pornography that portrays serious injury or life-threatening acts. However, non-fatal strangulation, although deeply dangerous and traumatic, is not consistently covered by the existing legal framework. The new clause would close that gap by providing clarity to police and prosecutors and sending a clear message that depictions of life-threatening violence for sexual gratification are unacceptable. By targeting depictions in which the act affects a person’s ability to breathe and amounts to battery, the new clause is narrowly focused to avoid capturing consensual and legal adult activity while still addressing that which represents serious harm. It would bring the law into line with recent legislative steps such as the introduction of the offence of non-fatal strangulation in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, acknowledging the real risk and impact of that conduct. Ultimately, this change would strengthen protections for the public and uphold standards of decency, particularly in safeguarding against material that eroticises violence and coercion.
I do not wish to divide the Committee on new clause 6, but would like us to divide on new clause 51, which I understand will be decided on later.
Alex Davies-Jones
I want to make it very clear to hon. Members that I have immense sympathy for the sentiments behind all the new clauses in this group. All of us in the House wish to make society a safer place for women and girls. Indeed, this Government were elected with a commitment to halving violence against women and girls. I am sure we all agree that the fight against the proliferation of extreme pornography and access to harmful material is one step to achieving that goal, so before I respond to new clauses 5 to 7 and 51, I want to share a few thanks.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for tabling new clauses 5 to 7 and for tirelessly campaigning to raise awareness of online harm. I also thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 51. Importantly, I thank Baroness Bertin, whose independent report on pornography provides us with invaluable insight into pornography and online harm, which the Government continue to consider carefully. All the new clauses shed light on serious issues, and I welcome their being brought to the fore today.
New clause 5 aims to equalise the treatment of pornography regulation online and offline, by making legal but harmful content prohibited online. It seeks to give effect to a recommendation made by Baroness Bertin in her review, which makes the case for parity in the regulation of pornography online and offline. She recommends achieving that through either a new pornography code under the Online Safety Act 2023, or a publication offence, which would render illegal a variety of currently legal pornography content. That approach is similar to what new clause 5 aims to do.
Before I respond to the new clause, I will set out the current legislative framework. Both online and offline pornography is subject to criminal and regulatory legislation and enforcement. The Video Recordings Act 1984 makes it an offence to distribute pornography in a physical media format that has not been classified by the British Board of Film Classification. The BBFC will not classify any content in breach of criminal law or certain other types of pornography. Section 368E of the Communications Act 2003 builds on that framework by prohibiting on-demand programme services, such as ITVX or Prime Video, from showing “prohibited material”, which includes any video that has been refused classification certification by the BBFC and any material that would be refused a classification certificate if it were considered by the BBFC. That is enforced by Ofcom as a regulatory matter.
In addition, the Online Safety Act treats certain pornography or related material offences as priority offences, which means that user-to-user services must take proactive measures to remove extreme pornography, intimate image abuse and child sex abuse material from their platforms. The Act also places a duty on user-to-user service providers to take steps to prevent such material from appearing online in the first place. Those provisions apply to services even if the companies providing them are outside the UK, if they have links to the UK.
The criminal law also prohibits the possession of extreme pornography and the publication of obscene material, either online or offline. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 extends to the publication of obscene material other than pornography. The Video Recordings Act 1984, the Licensing Act 2003 and section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalise the simple possession of extreme pornographic images.
New clause 5 would make the publication, or facilitation of publication, of such content online a criminal offence, with regulatory enforcement of the new criminal regime where the person publishing the content is an online platform. The criminal offence created by the new clause would rely on the definition in section 368E of the Communications Act 2003, which requires a judgment to be made about whether the BBFC would classify content that has not been subject to the classification process. Creating this style of criminal offence would require a clearer and more certain definition of such content, as any individual would need to be able to clearly understand what conduct may result in their conviction. Extensive further work would be needed to consider and define what currently legal online pornography cannot be published with sufficient certainty to ensure that any offence was enforceable and workable as intended.
New clause 6 also attempts to give effect to the recommendations made by Baroness Bertin in her review of pornography. It seeks to create additional requirements for websites hosting pornographic material to verify that all individuals featured were over 18 before the content was created, consented to the publication of the material, and are able to withdraw that consent at any time. It would further regulate the online pornography sector and create a new criminal offence for individuals who publish or facilitate the publishing of content online, where the age and valid consent of the individuals featured have not been verified. The underlying conduct depicted if a person is under 18 or non-consenting would include child sexual abuse, sexual assault, non-consensual intimate image abuse and potentially modern slavery offences.
The existing criminal law prohibits the creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material, and the possession of extreme pornographic material, which includes non-consensual penetrative sexual acts. The law on the distribution of indecent images of children is very clear. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under 18, and these offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 also makes the simple possession of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children an offence, which carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. In addition, all published material is subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / 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: 4 / 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: 4 / 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: 4 / 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: 4 / 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: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / 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: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 6—Pornographic content: duty to verify age—
“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if they publish or allow or facilitate the publishing of pornographic content online where it has not been verified that—
(a) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has given their consent for the content in which they feature to be published or made available by the service; and/or
(b) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has been verified as an adult, and that age verification completed before the content was created and before it was published on the service; and/or
(c) every individual featured in pornographic content on the platform, that had already published on the service when this Act is passed, is an adult.
(2) It is irrelevant under (1a) whether the individual featured in pornographic material has previously given their consent to the relevant content being published, if they have subsequently withdrawn that consent in writing either directly or via an appointed legal representative to—
(a) the platform, or
(b) the relevant regulator where a contact address was not provided by the platform to receive external communications.
(3) If withdrawal of consent under (2) has been communicated in writing to an address issued by the platform or to the relevant public body, the relevant material must be removed by the platform within 24 hours of the communication being sent.
(4) An individual guilty of an offence is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).
(5) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of where the offence takes place.
(6) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if any part of the offence takes place in the UK.
(7) The platform on which material that violates the provisions in this section is published can be fined up to £18 million or 10 percent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
(8) The Secretary of State will appoint one or more public bodies to monitor and enforce compliance by online platforms with this section, with the relevant public body—
(a) granted powers to impose business disruption measures on non-compliant online platforms, including but not limited to service restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an ancillary service, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service); and access restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an access facility, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service).
(b) required to act in accordance with regulations relating to monitoring and enforcement of this section issued by the Secretary of State, including but not limited to providing the Secretary of State with a plan for monitoring and enforcement of the provisions in this section within six months of the bill entering into force, and publishing annual updates on enforcement activity relating to this section.
(9) Internet services hosting pornographic content must make and keep a written record outlining their compliance with the provisions of this section. Such a record must be made summarised in a publicly available statement alongside the publishing requirements in section 81(4) and (5) of the Online Safety Act.”
This new clause makes it a requirement for pornography websites to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their site, and enable withdrawal of consent at any time.
New clause 7—Pornographic Content: Duty to safeguard against illegal content—
“(1) The Online Safety Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80(1), after ‘service’ insert ‘and the illegal content duties outlined in Part 3 of this Act.’”
This new clause extends the illegal content duties in Part 3 of the Act to all internet services which are subject to the regulated provider pornographic content duties in Part 5 of the Act.
New clause 51—Amendment of Possession of extreme pornographic images—
“(1) Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession of extreme pornographic images) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) an act which affects a person’s ability to breath and constitutes battery of that person.’”
This new clause would extend the legal definition of the extreme pornography to include the depiction of non-fatal strangulation.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
CCTV on railway network
“(1) It is a legal requirement for CCTV cameras across the railway network in England and Wales to be capable of enabling immediate access by the British Transport Police and relevant Police Forces.
(2) All footage retained by CCTV cameras on the railway network must remain accessible to the British Transport Police and relevant Police Forces for the entirety of the retention period.
(3) The retention period specified in subsection (2) is 30 calendar days.
(4) Further to subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report, within three months of the passing of this Act, specifying a compatibility standard that will facilitate CCTV access for the British Transport Police and any Police Force in England and Wales.”—(Luke Taylor.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). We seek a simple but critical improvement to public safety: the interoperability of CCTV systems across our railway network. Currently, rail operators maintain CCTV systems that are not integrated with British Transport police or the local territorial forces in the areas they serve. This technological gap is not just a logistical inconvenience, but an active barrier to justice and public protection.
This issue came to light in a very practical context. My hon. Friend became aware of a spike in bike thefts at St Albans City station. Despite the presence of cameras at the station, the police faced severe limitations on their access to the footage they needed, which delayed investigations and reduced the chance of recovering the stolen property. At the other end of the Thameslink line, at Sutton station, I have had an expensive e-bike stolen and two other bikes dismantled—the theft of a saddle made my ride home from work one night particularly uncomfortable.
This is not just about my cycling challenges, but about broader criminal activity on our railways, including antisocial behaviour, assaults and, most gravely, threats to the safety of women and vulnerable people using our public transport. When someone is attacked or harassed on a platform or in a train carriage, time is of the essence, and having the ability to quickly retrieve and share CCTV footage can make the difference between justice and impunity. New clause 9 would fix this problem by requiring rail operators to ensure that their CCTV systems are compatible with law enforcement systems, enabling faster, more co-ordinated responses when incidents occur. In an age when we expect smart, connected infrastructure, this is a common-sense step that aligns with public expectations and operational necessity. In the age of Great British Railways, it would be an opportunity to streamline and standardise the systems used by our currently fragmented rail system into a single, interoperable system that improves the experience and safety of riders.
I urge the Committee to support the new clause not because it would improve security on paper, but because it would make a tangible difference to the safety and confidence of passengers across the rail network.
Matt Vickers
Requiring CCTV on the rail network to meet police access and retention standards could bring important benefits for public safety and criminal justice. Ensuring footage is readily accessible to the police would help to deter crime, enable faster investigations and support prosecutions with reliable evidence.
Victims and witnesses benefit when their accounts can quickly be corroborated, and cases are more likely to be resolved effectively. Standardising CCTV systems across train operators would also reduce inefficiencies, removing delays that can occur due to incompatible formats or outdated technology. In high-risk areas or busy urban transport hubs, this kind of clarity and consistency could make a real difference to public confidence and police capability.
No doubt some will argue that increased surveillance on public transport raises questions about privacy and civil liberties, particularly if passengers feel that they are being constantly monitored. Also, rail operators may face high financial and logistical burdens if they are required to overhaul existing CCTV infrastructure to meet new standards. For smaller operators in particular, the cost of compliance could be significant, potentially impacting service provision or ticket prices.
I would be grateful if the Liberal Democrats told us whether this requirement would apply to all train operating companies, including heritage railways and smaller, regional operators. What specific technical or operational standards would CCTV systems be expected to meet, and how would those be determined or updated over time? Have they reviewed how many operators already meet or fall short of the proposed standards, and what level of upgrade would typically be required? Have they assessed the financial implications for train operators, and would they expect any Government funding or support to assist implementation?
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
New clause 9 would introduce a requirement that all CCTV camera images on the railway be made immediately accessible to the British Transport police and the relevant local Home Office police force. I am sympathetic to the cases that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, shared with the Committee. I particularly sympathise with his plight and predicament when his saddle was stolen; having to cycle home without a saddle must have been incredibly painful, so I fully welcome the aims of this new clause. We know that lack of immediate access to railway CCTV camera images has been a significant issue for the British Transport police, as it may reduce their ability to investigate crime as quickly as possible. However, I do not believe that legislation is necessary to address the issue. Let me explain why.
My colleagues at the Department for Transport are looking to implement a system that will provide remote, immediate access for the BTP, Home Office forces and the railway industry where relevant. As I said, that does not need legislation. What is needed is a technological solution and the resources to provide for that. I am sure that the hon. Member will continue to press the case with the Department for Transport, and for updates on the progress of the work, but for now, I invite him to withdraw his new clause.
Luke Taylor
In response to the specific comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West, this measure relates entirely to existing footage and would allow access to existing footage. I thank the Minister for addressing the points made. At this point, are happy to withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Domestic abuse aggravated offences
“(1) Any criminal offence committed within England and Wales is domestic abuse aggravated, if—
(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other, and
(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.
(2) In this section—
(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and
(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”—(Luke Taylor.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As things stand, there is no specific criminal offence of domestic abuse in England and Wales. Instead, such cases are prosecuted under a patchwork of broader offences: common assault, actual bodily harm and coercive control. While those charges may reflect elements of abuse, they too often fail to capture the sustained pattern nature of domestic violence.
The legal ambiguity has far-reaching consequences. Under the Government’s own SDS40—standard determinate sentences 40%—scheme, high-risk offenders, especially those who pose a continued threat to public safety, should be exempt from early release, but owing to the lack of specific domestic abuse offences, perpetrators charged under more general categories, such as common assault, remain eligible for early release. In effect, abusers walk free while their victims live in fear. That is not a technical oversight; it is a systemic failure, and it has rightly been challenged by Women’s Aid, Refuge, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other voices we cannot afford to ignore.
That is why I welcome both the proposed amendment to the SDS40 scheme and the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). That Bill would create a defined set of domestic abuse aggravated offences, recognising the context of abuse and making such offences clearly identifiable in the criminal justice system. If adopted, the reform would not only enhance the visibility of domestic abuse, but close the dangerous loopholes in relation to early release. It would bring the law into alignment with the lived experiences of victims and send a clear message: domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a public crime and will be treated as such.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I personally thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for his tireless commitment to, and campaigning on, tackling domestic abuse. He is right to highlight the need to identify and track domestic offenders better in our justice system. It is a crucial issue. I welcome this important discussion and the many conversations that I have had with him in my ministerial office about how best to collaborate to achieve this.
New clause 12 seeks to introduce a new label, “domestic abuse aggravated”, which will apply to any offence where the offender and victim are personally connected and both aged 16 or over. Offences ranging from assault to fraud would be designated as domestic abuse aggravated where they met the statutory definition of domestic abuse. We recognise the intent behind the new clause and are deeply sympathetic to it; we agree that better categorisation and management of domestic abuse offenders is crucial. However, there are a number of important considerations that need to be carefully worked through to ensure that any new approach is effective and workable, and that it will actually help victims.
There are significant questions that need to be answered if we are to ensure that any reform strengthens, rather than complicates, our response to domestic abuse. While the new clause introduces a new label, it does not set out a clear mechanism for how the designation would be applied in practice. As proposed, it creates a category of domestic abuse offender by virtue of their offence, but does not set out legal or operational implications for charging or sentencing. Without clarity about its function, there is a risk that the provision will introduce unnecessary complexity in the legal framework, in particular through how it operates alongside the Sentencing Council’s existing guidelines, in which domestic abuse is already recognised as an aggravating factor. Courts therefore already consider imposing tougher sentences when an offence occurs in a domestic setting.
Despite those concerns, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and one that I have discussed at length with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I assure both hon. Members that work is under way across Government on how we can better identify domestic abuse offenders. This is a complex issue, and it is right that we take the time to ensure that any changes are robust and deliver meaningful improvements, but we are on the case.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne can rest assured that the Government are actively considering the issue. I would be glad to work with him—I extend that invitation to any Member of the House—on identifying the most effective way forward. While we do not believe the new clause is the right solution at this time, we welcome ongoing discussions on how best to improve the categorisation and tracking of domestic abuse offenders within the justice system. For those reasons, I ask that new clause 12 be withdrawn.
Luke Taylor
We would like to press the new clause to a vote, please.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 27—Fines for sale of stolen equipment—
“(1) The Equipment Theft Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (Enforcement), subsection (2) at end insert ‘equal to—
(a) the replacement cost of the equipment,
(b) the cost of repairing any damage caused during the theft, and
(c) the trading losses incurred by the offended party.’”
This new clause would ensure the fine charged to a person convicted of equipment theft would reflect the cost to a tradesman of replacing their equipment, repairing any damage to their equipment or property, and any business they’ve lost as a result.
New clause 32—Theft from farms—
“(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) In Chapter 3, Aggravating Factors, after section 72 insert—
‘(72A) Theft from farms
(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence specified in section 7 of The Theft Act 1968.
(2) If the theft was of high value farming equipment, the court—
(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“high value farming equipment” is machinery and tools used in agricultural operations to enhance productivity and efficiency, with a value of at least £10,000.’”
This new clause makes theft of high value farming equipment an aggravating factor on sentencing.
New clause 96—Theft of tools from tradesmen—
“(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) In Chapter 3, Aggravating Factors, after section 72 insert—
‘72A Theft of tools from tradesmen
(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence specified in section 7 of the Theft Act 1968.
(2) If the theft was of tools from a tradesman, the court—
(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”
This new clause would make the theft of tools from a tradesman an aggravating factor.
New clause 98—Enforcement plan for sale of stolen equipment at car boot sales—
“(1) The Equipment Theft Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (Enforcement), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) An enforcement authority must put in place an enforcement plan to enforce regulations made under section 1 at temporary markets in their area.’”
This new clause would require local councils or local trading standards organisations to put in place an enforcement plan for the sale of stolen equipment at temporary markets, which includes car boot sales.
Anna Sabine
I rise to speak to new clause 13, but the Liberal Democrats also support Opposition new clauses 27, 32, 96 and 98, which are grouped with it.
We want to amend the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 specifically to include the theft of global positioning system or GPS equipment. That may sound like a technical issue, but for farmers across the country, such as those in my Frome and East Somerset constituency, it is an urgent and deeply practical one. GPS units are no longer optional extras—they are essential tools for modern farming, guiding tractors and combine harvesters with precision, improving productivity and ensuring that key agricultural work happens on time. Yet these high-tech units, typically costing over £10,000 each, have become a prime target for increasingly organised criminal gangs. In 2023 alone, NFU Mutual reported that claims for GPS theft soared by 137%, reaching an estimated £4.2 million. These are not isolated incidents: intelligence shows that gangs often target multiple farms in one night, stealing with precision and frequently returning weeks later to take the newly installed replacements.
Matt Vickers
New clauses 27, 96 and 98 seek to tackle the real and growing problem of tool theft from tradesmen. At this point, I declare an interest as the son of a builder. This country is built on the back of tradesmen. They are the small businesses that make a huge contribution to our economy and build the world around us. I have seen at first hand the nightmare that occurs when guys or girls in the trade get up at daft o’clock to go to work and earn a living, only to find that their van or lock-up has been broken into and their equipment stolen. They lose the equipment, their vehicle gets damaged and they lose a day’s work. In fact, they can lose days or weeks of work, and the nature of their employment often means that that is a real financial loss.
Not only do these hard-working people suffer that loss, but they know that little is done to stop this ever-increasing problem. I have spoken to tradesmen and key campaigners on this issue, such as Shoaib Awan and the team at Fix Radio, who have been standing up for tradesmen across the country, organising a rally in Westminster and ensuring that their voice is heard. Many people will have seen my good friend the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), raising this issue on GB News and talking about the failure of agencies to tackle it.
Shoaib has highlighted the fact that not only do people wake up to the consequences and costs of such thefts, but all too often, they go to a car boot sale at the weekend to see the thieves selling the stolen goods in broad daylight with little, if any, action from the police and trading standards. I ask anyone who does not think that these amendments are necessary to listen to Shoaib or watch the coverage on GB News, should they so wish. As more thieves get away with and profit from this crime, so its prevalence continues to increase. Since Sadiq Khan became mayor, tool theft in London has gone up by 60%. I hope Members will consider these amendments.
New clause 27 strengthens the deterrent effect of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 by aligning financial penalties with the real-world losses experienced by tradespeople and small businesses when their tools or equipment are stolen. The current enforcement provisions may result in fines that are disconnected from the actual harm caused, particularly to self-employed individuals or small and medium-sized enterprises, where the loss of equipment can be financially devastating. The new clause introduces a fairer and more effective approach by unequivocally requiring courts to impose fines that reflect the full replacement cost of the stolen equipment, the cost of repairing any damage done during the theft and the trading loss incurred while the equipment was unavailable, whether it be cancelled jobs, lost contracts or reputational harm.
Tool theft has reached crisis levels in the UK, with one in 10 tradespeople expected to experience tool theft this year alone. Many of the victims have already endured multiple incidents and, alarmingly, self-employed tradespeople are 38% more likely than their employed counterparts to fall victim to this type of crime. Yet, despite the prevalence of this crime, only 1% of stolen tools are ever recovered.
The consequences of tool theft go far beyond the immediate loss of equipment. Victims face an average cost of £2,730 to replace stolen tools, £1,320 in vehicle or property repairs and £1,900 in lost work and business disruption—a combined blow of nearly £6,000. More than four in five victims report a negative impact on mental health, with over one third describing it as “major”. That is no small issue, especially in an industry already suffering one of the UK’s highest suicide rates. More than 40% of victims say the theft has damaged their business reputation, and one in 10 say the reputational impact was significant. Frustration with the police and the legal response is widespread. Nearly one quarter of tradespeople—22.7%—do not even bother reporting tool theft to authorities, citing poor outcomes and a lack of follow-up.
According to figures from CrimeRate, Bristol has the highest rates of general crime, with 106 crimes per 1,000 residents, followed by West Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and West Midlands. Those rates correlate with high levels of tool theft. The persistent threat of crime means that, for 68% of tradespeople, worrying about such theft is a daily reality. The new clause would not only ensure that victims are properly compensated, but send a strong message to offenders that equipment theft is not a low-risk crime. For many tradespeople, a single incident can lead to thousands of pounds in losses and days or weeks of missed work. The clause reflects a growing recognition that crimes affecting livelihoods must be met with penalties that match the seriousness and consequences of the offence. It supports victims, reinforces respect for the law and helps to protect the economic wellbeing of skilled workers across the country.
New clause 96 seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to make the theft of tools from a tradesman an explicit aggravating factor when courts are considering the seriousness of a theft offence under section 7 of the Theft Act 1968. The intention is to recognise the disproportionate harm caused when essential work tools are stolen from skilled tradespeople, many of whom rely entirely on their tools to earn a living. By requiring courts to treat such thefts more seriously and state that fact in open court, the clause ensures that sentencing properly reflects the real-world impact of those crimes. It improves public confidence in the justice system and sends a clear message that targeting workers in such a way will not be tolerated.
The UK’s skilled trade sector is essential to infrastructure, housing and national economic recovery, yet, when they are targeted by thieves, many tradespeople feel unprotected and underserved by the criminal justice system. By introducing this aggravating factor, Parliament would send a clear message that these crimes are taken seriously and that the justice system stands on the side of workers who keep our country running. The provision would also help to restore public confidence in sentencing, ensuring that punishment better reflects the real impact on victims.
New clause 96 would also bring greater consistency and transparency in sentencing by obliging courts to state in open court when a theft is aggravated by the fact that tools were stolen from a tradesman. The system reinforces public accountability and the principle that sentencing should consider not only the value of items stolen, but the importance to the victim’s life and work.
New clause 98 addresses a growing concern about the sale of stolen tradespeople’s tools at car boot sales and other temporary markets. Requiring local councils or trading standards authorities to implement an enforcement plan would ensure a more proactive and consistent approach to tackling the issue. Car boot sales and temporary markets, although important parts of local economies and communities, have become a common outlet for the sale of stolen tradesmen’s tools. These informal settings often have minimal regulatory oversight, making them attractive to criminals seeking to quickly offload high value items. Requiring councils to create enforcement plans would close this enforcement gap, helping to dismantle a key part of the stolen goods supply chain.
Tradespeople, many of whom are self-employed, are among those most affected by tool theft. Their tools are not just possessions; they are the means by which individuals earn a living. Stolen tools being resold at car boot sales with little oversight reinforces the cycle of crime and undermines legitimate business. A local enforcement plan will support hard-working tradespeople by increasing the risk for those attempting to profit from their misfortune.
Any Member who has taken the time to speak to affected tradespeople will have heard their overwhelming frustration at the lack of the lack of action at car boot sales, watching tools stolen from them being sold in front of their face in broad daylight with no action from the agencies. This new clause seeks to put that right. By requiring councils to plan enforcement at temporary markets, it would encourage more responsible behaviour among market organisers and set a baseline for due diligence, including vendor checks, co-operation with law enforcement and public awareness initiatives. Such expectations could help to preserve the integrity and trustworthiness of community markets without disrupting legitimate trade.
This is a common-sense, low-cost policy that leverages existing local authority structures. Many councils already have trading standards and enforcement teams in place able to take this on. This measure simply ensures that they will turn their attention to this persistent and growing problem. Enforcement plans could include scheduled inspections, information sharing with police and targeted education for both vendors and shoppers. This preventive approach could reduce the frequency of thefts by making it more difficult for criminals to profit.
The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 set an important precedent in efforts to crack down on the theft of high-value tools and equipment. However, legislation is only effective when matched by local enforcement. This clause bridges the gap between law and local action, giving councils a clear duty and direction to enforce the law where the illicit trade is happening on the ground.
Local residents and small business owners often feel powerless in the face of persistent tool theft. Seeing their local councils take meaningful and visible action, such as regular enforcement of markets, could help to build trust in the system, sending a message that this type of crime is taken seriously and that steps are being taken at every level to protect those most vulnerable to its effect.
The new clause would help deter the resale of stolen goods, protect legitimate tradespeople from further victimisation and send a clear message that theft and resale will be actively policed at all levels. This targeted local action complements broader sentencing reforms and supports efforts to reduce tool theft across the UK.
New clause 32 seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 and specifically targets the growing issue of rural crime by making the theft of high-value farming equipment a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing decisions. Under the proposed provision, when a court is considering the seriousness of a theft offence under section 7 of the Theft Act 1968, and the theft involves farming machinery or tools valued at £10,000 or more, it must treat the value and nature of the stolen property as an aggravating factor.
The theft of high-value farm equipment has a profound and often devastating impact on rural communities and agricultural businesses. These machines, such as tractors, GPS systems, harvesters and other specialised tools, are not only expensive to replace, but also critical to daily operations. When they are stolen, the immediate financial loss can exceed £10,000, but the broader consequences go much further. Farmers face significant disruption to their work, delayed harvesting or planting and reduced productivity, which can affect the entire food supply chain.
Many rural businesses operate on tight margins and such thefts can push them into financial instability or force them to cease operations temporarily. Beyond economics, these crimes erode confidence in rural policing and leave victims feeling vulnerable and targeted, especially in remote areas where support and security may already be limited.
The new clause would also require courts to explicitly state in open court that the offence has been aggravated by this factor. The intent is to reflect the serious disruption and financial harm caused by the theft of vital agricultural machinery such as tractors, GPS units or harvesters, which are essential for productivity and food security in rural communities. By making that an aggravating factor, the new clause aims to ensure that sentencing reflects the full impact on victims and serves as a more effective deterrent. I hope that the Government will consider backing our farmers and backing this new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has undertaken a significant amount of work to help tackle tool and equipment theft, including the introduction of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 as a private Member’s Bill, to address the escalating issue of equipment and tool theft affecting tradespeople, farmers and rural businesses across England and Wales.
The 2023 Act empowers the Secretary of State to mandate that all new all-terrain vehicles such as quad bikes come equipped with immobilisers and forensic marking before sale. The measures aim to make stolen equipment less attractive to thieves and easier to trace. The Act could make a real and meaningful difference to the issues we are debating here. It received Royal Assent and is designed to deter theft and facilitate the recovery of stolen equipment. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the progress of enacting the measures set out in that Act.
Alex Davies-Jones
I would be happy to do so, but first I must say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset and to the hon. Member for Stockton West for setting out the rationale behind these new clauses.
New clause 13 seeks to extend the scope of the 2023 Act to include the theft of GPS equipment. Such equipment is often used in agricultural and commercial settings. We know the significant impact of thefts of agricultural machinery, in particular all-terrain vehicles, on individuals and businesses in rural areas, and the disruption to essential farming when these thefts occur. That is why we are committed to implementing the 2023 Act to help prevent the theft and resale of high-value equipment. We intend to introduce the necessary secondary legislation later this year, and we will be publishing the Government’s response to the call for evidence soon to confirm the scope of that legislation.
Luke Taylor
The premise of the Minister’s point is effectively that sufficient legislation is already in place to combat these crimes. The response to an freedom of information request that I submitted to the Met police showed that in London, in the last five years, nine in 10 tool thefts went unsolved. The fact that that failure has been allowed to continue under the existing legislation suggests that legislation is not sufficient. I support the proposed new clauses because something needs to change to stop these incredibly damaging crimes, which are affecting not just the livelihoods, but the mental health of our valuable, essential tradespeople and their families.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that comment from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I and this Government recognise that theft is a crime, and that victims are immensely impacted by it—we heard earlier about the hon. Member’s own circumstances—but the legislation is adequate. As I have already said, we have robust legislation to tackle these crimes. What has been apparent over the last 14 years is a decimation of our public services, including our policing, which has meant that police do not have the resources that they need to investigate these crimes effectively. I am glad to say that this Government are changing that by recruiting and funding more police officers, including for the Met police, to ensure that we have the police to go after these criminals.
Luke Taylor
The Minister has set me up nicely with that point, and I will come back to it later. The Met police are going to reduce their staff—including officers and police community support officers—by 1,700 next year. The Government are attempting to present a case that the legislation is sufficient at present, and that they are providing more officers and resources to police forces to combat the increase in these crimes. Whoever’s fault it was—and we all make points about the cause, the cuts, when the cuts started, and what conditions were prior to them—if the Met police will suffer the loss of 1,700 officers next year due to the funding situation, and the legislation is currently letting down tradespeople, I would gently push back that either the measures in the legislation or the resources are insufficient to solve an issue that we all generally agree exists today.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Policing Minister assures me that that figure for the number of cuts being made by the Met police is not correct. We are happy to debate that. I and this Government are still sufficiently certain that the legislation is robust in this area. We can debate the means that we have to tackle that but, as I have stated, this Government are funding more police resources to ensure that those who commit these crimes are being sought. In an earlier sitting of the Committee, we debated why it is so important to clarify and get right provisions for shop theft, so that the police have adequate equipment and resources to go after the perpetrators. These thefts are illegal but, for whatever reason, the crimes are not being pursued. We are determined to ensure, through our safer streets mission, that that problem is tackled, but the legislation that we have in place is robust.
Regarding the courts and the justice system, the Government do consider that the courts are already considering the impacts of such crimes when sentencing. The addition of the measures in the proposed new clauses would add unnecessary complications to the sentencing framework. Moreover, sentencing in individual cases should as far as possible be at the discretion of our independent judiciary, to ensure that sentences are fair, impartial and proportionate.
Finally, as I have already set out, any changes to the sentencing framework should take into account the sentencing review’s recommendations, which are due to be published shortly.
On new clause 98, I understand the frustration that many individuals feel when they see stolen equipment being sold at car boot sales and other informal markets. I reassure the shadow Minister that the Government take this issue seriously. However, we cannot support the clause in the absence of further policy work and engagement with relevant authorities to explore the best way to ensure that stolen equipment is not sold in informal market settings or at car boot sales.
Overall, I am sympathetic to the spirit of the new clauses, but I do not believe them to be necessary at this time. I reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to tackle the theft and resale of equipment.
Matt Vickers
Can I take it that there is a commitment to doing something to clamp down on the situation with temporary markets and car boot sales? Also, will the Minister meet with Shoaib Awan, the gas fitter who has been campaigning on the issue, to discuss what that might look like and to hear the sector’s frustrations?
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, we are happy to meet with Shoaib Awan to discuss this, and yes, we have a commitment to looking at the situation more widely and at the issue directly. As someone who loves a car boot sale, I am keen to explore the question further.
I ask the shadow Minister to be patient for a little while longer as we finalise our plans for the implementation of the 2023 Act, and as we look into the issues in more detail to get the policy work right. On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Anna Sabine
I seek a quick clarification from the Minister. Was she saying that under the plans to implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, there may be scope within some secondary legislation to look at GPS thefts specifically? Did I understand that correctly?
Luke Taylor
I rise to speak in support of new clause 13, as well as Conservative new clauses 27, 96 and 98. We had a long discussion on this issue, but it is worth repeating as often as possible that tool theft is a devastating crime that cost tradespeople more than £94 million last year.
Research from NFU Mutual shows that one in three tradespeople now live in constant fear of violent thieves. Some have been attacked with crowbars and other weapons just for trying to protect their tools from being ripped out of their vans. At the February rally in Parliament Square organised by Trades United, I heard from campaigners about tradespeople not letting their vehicles out of their sight, and about thieves cutting off the roofs of their vans to steal tools. It was heartbreaking. We hear about the impact on those tradespeople and their families, including suicides and mental health problems.
Despite the back and forth, I think we should make it absolutely clear that this issue needs to be addressed, and that powers must be given to the police and courts to treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. Tool theft is more than just standard assault or theft; it is an assault on tradespeople’s hard work and their livelihoods. It is time to acknowledge that danger to their entire livelihoods and lifestyles.
Anna Sabine
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Rural Crime Prevention Strategy
“(1) A day after this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must establish a rural crime prevention task force to develop proposals for tackling rural crime.
(2) The task force should be tasked with a remit that includes, but is not confined to, examining—
(a) The particular types of crime that occur in rural areas;
(b) Crime rates in rural communities across England and Wales;
(c) The current levels of police resources and funding in rural communities;
(d) Whether specific training in how to respond to rural crime call-outs should be undertaken by police control room operators;
(e) The operational case, and the funding implications, of appointing rural crime specialists in Police Forces across England and Wales which serve areas that include a significant rural population; and
(f) Whether a National Rural Crime Coordinator should be established.
(3) The task force established under subsection (1) must submit a rural crime prevention strategy to the Secretary of State within six months of its appointment.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within a month of receiving the report made by the task force, lay before both Houses of Parliament a written response to the task force’s recommendations.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within a month of laying their response to the task force’s report, ensure that an amendable motion on the subject of the rural crime task force’s recommendations is laid, and moved, before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Anna Sabine.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime, makes provision for specific aspects of the task force’s remit, and requires the Secretary of State to bring forward a substantive motion before both Houses of Parliament on the task force’s recommendations.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a rural crime taskforce, which is a long overdue step in recognising and addressing the growing threat of rural crime across England and Wales. In 2023 alone, the total cost of rural crime surged to a staggering £52.8 million—a 22% increase since 2020. Behind that figure lie the lives and livelihoods of farmers, landowners and rural communities who are increasingly under siege from organised criminal gangs. These are not petty thefts, but targeted cross-border operations involving the theft of high-value machinery, vehicles and GPS units, often facilitated by networks that are deliberately structured to evade detection by working across multiple police force boundaries. I have spoken to my many farmers in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, and many of these rural crimes end in terrifying physical altercations between farmers and criminals, and even threats being made against farmers’ families.
Yet, while the threat has grown, the policing response has not. Fewer than 1% of officers in England and Wales are dedicated to rural crime. Many forces lack even the basic tools, such as drone kits and mobile automatic number plate recognition cameras, to respond effectively. It is no wonder that 49% of rural residents feel that police do not take rural crime seriously, and two thirds believe reporting it is a waste of time. This new clause would change that. It mandates the creation of a taskforce with a clear and comprehensive remit to assess crime levels, review police resources, consider rural-specific training, explore the case for rural crime specialists and evaluate whether a national rural crime co-ordinator should be established.
Importantly, the new clause is not just about a report gathering dust. It requires the Secretary of State to respond to the taskforce’s strategy in writing, and to bring an amendable motion before both Houses. That would ensure that Parliament is not just informed, but actively involved in shaping the solution to rural crime. Rural crime is not a niche issue; it is a national issue. Rural communities deserve to know that they are seen, heard and protected by the laws of this land. The taskforce is not a symbolic gesture; it is a practical, focused and long overdue step towards restoring confidence, strengthening policing and securing justice for rural Britain.
Matt Vickers
Rural communities deserve the same protection, visibility and voice as those in urban areas, yet too often rural crime goes under-reported, under-resourced and underestimated. From equipment theft and fly-tipping to wildlife crime and antisocial behaviour, the challenges facing rural areas are distinct and growing. Having rural crime recognised in police structures and developing a specific taskforce could send a strong signal that rural communities matter, that their concerns are heard and that they will not be left behind when it comes to public safety.
However, although the new clause is clearly well-intentioned I would like to put some operational questions to those who tabled it, to ensure greater clarity. What assessment has been made of the additional resources that police forces might need to implement such a strategy effectively, particularly in already stretched rural areas? The new clause refers to the creation of new roles. The National Police Chiefs’ Council already has a rural crime lead and many police forces across the country already appoint rural crime co-ordinators. How would the suggested additional roles be different?
How does the new clause balance the need for a national strategy with the operational independence and local decision making of police and crime commissioners? Is there a clear definition of what constitutes a rural area for the purposes of this strategy? How will this be applied consistently across the country? I am interested to hear the answers, but would be minded to support the new clause if it was pressed to a Division.
Dame Diana Johnson
As the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset set out, new clause 14 would require the Government to establish a rural crime prevention taskforce. Let me first say that the Government take the issue of rural crime extremely seriously, and that rural communities matter. I want to outline some of the work going on in this area.
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the vital role that the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit play in tackling crimes affecting our rural areas, as well as helping police across the UK to tackle organised theft and disrupt serious and organised crime. Those units have delivered a range of incredible successes. The national rural crime unit co-ordinated the operational response of several forces to the theft of GPS units across the UK, which resulted in multiple arrests and the disruption of two organised crime groups. The unit has recovered over £10 million in stolen property, including agricultural machinery and vehicles, in the past 18 months alone.
The national wildlife crime unit helped disrupt nine organised crime groups, with a further nine archived as no longer active, as well as assisting in the recovery of £4.2 million in financial penalties. It also oversees the police national response to hare coursing, which has resulted in a 40% reduction in offences.
I am delighted to say that the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit will, combined, receive over £800,000 in Home Office funding this financial year to continue their work tackling rural and wildlife crime, which can pose a unique challenge for policing given the scale and isolation of rural areas. The funding for the national rural crime unit will enable it to continue to increase collaboration across police forces and harness the latest technology and data to target the serious organised crime groups involved in crimes such as equipment theft from farms. The national wildlife crime unit will strengthen its ability to disrupt criminal networks exploiting endangered species both in the UK and internationally with enhanced data analysis and financial investigation, helping the unit to track illegal wildlife profits and to ensure that offenders face justice.
The funding comes as we work together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver the new NPCC-led rural and wildlife crime strategy to ensure that the entire weight of Government is put behind tackling rural crime. That new strategy is expected to be launched by the summer. We want to ensure that the Government’s safer streets mission benefits everyone, no matter where they live, including those in rural communities. This joined-up approach between the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and policing, as well as the confirmed funding for the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit, will help to ensure that the weight of Government is put behind tackling rural crimes such as the theft of high-value farm equipment, fly-tipping and livestock theft.
Given the work already ongoing in this area, I believe that the Liberal Democrat new clause is unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset to withdraw it.
Anna Sabine
I want to come back on some of the questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West. He asked about the resources that would be required to implement the strategy. Having spoken to the rural police force in my area, my understanding is that the issue is not necessarily one of rural officers being under-resourced, although more resource clearly would be helpful; it is actually to do with how those officers are allocated. For example, in Frome we have a rural crime team, but because of a lack of neighbourhood policing, if there is an incident in Frome on an evening—a fight outside a pub, for example—rural officers are deployed to go and deal with that rather than fighting rural crime. One of the challenges for those officers is that they are not actually allowed to do the job they are trained for, because they are covering for other areas.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the strategy was necessary when we already have various regional rural crime leads. The reason is that we need to ensure that rural crime is seen to be significant nationally—we need to have a national push and develop some strategies to tackle it. I welcome what the Minister said about that.
The shadow Minister’s third question was about defining rural areas. We are quite good at defining them now, so I am not sure why we could not continue to define rural crime areas in the way that constabularies do currently, but we could look at that.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on what is clearly a growing Government drive to take rural crime seriously. I do not doubt any of her figures about the reduction of crimes such as hare coursing. All I would say is that farmers in my constituency are really not reporting crimes, and I worry that crime figures are dropping simply because crime is not being reported, not because it is not occurring. The longer rural crime is not taken seriously, the more those numbers will drop.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 16—Neighbourhood Policing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every local authority area in England and Wales has a neighbourhood policing team must be assigned exclusively to community-based duties, including:
(a) High-visibility foot patrols;
(b) Community engagement and intelligence gathering;
(c) Crime prevention initiatives; and
(d) Solving crime.
(2) The Home Office must publish proposals detailing the additional funding that will be required to ensure that police forces can meet these requirements without reducing officer numbers in other frontline policing roles.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing:
(a) The number of officers and PCSOs deployed in neighbourhood policing roles;
(b) The total cost of maintaining the required levels; and
(c) The impact on crime reduction and public confidence in policing.
(4) If a police force fails to meet the minimum staffing levels required under subsection (1), the Home Office must intervene and provide emergency funding to ensure compliance within six months.”
Anna Sabine
New clauses 15 and 16 are vital in ensuring robust neighbourhood policing across England and Wales. New clause 15 mandates the Government to publish proposals within six months to maintain neighbourhood policing teams at levels necessary for effective community engagement and crime prevention. That includes designating a proportion of funds recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for neighbourhood policing initiatives and ringfencing 20% of total funds in future police grant reports specifically for neighbourhood policing.
New clause 16 would require the Government to ensure that every local authority area has a dedicated neighbourhood policing team assigned exclusively to community-based duties such as high-visibility foot patrols, community engagement, crime prevention initiatives and solving crime. The Home Office must also publish proposals detailing the additional funding needed to meet these requirements without reducing officer numbers in other frontline roles.
The rationale for the new clauses is clear. Home Office figures reveal that the number of neighbourhood police officers in England and Wales as of March 2024 was 20% lower than previously thought. Across the country, there were 6,210 fewer neighbourhood police officers than earlier official figures suggested. In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset the situation is particularly concerning. The latest data shows that crime rates have been rising, with 269 crimes reported in Frome in March 2024 alone. That highlights the urgent need for more neighbourhood police officers to ensure community safety and effective crime prevention. Furthermore, the number of PCSOs has been drastically reduced, with 235 taken off the streets of England and Wales in just one year. My local force, Avon and Somerset, saw PCSO numbers fall from 315 to 255 since September ’23—a loss of nearly 20% and the biggest in any force in England.
The new clauses are essential for reversing those trends and restoring public confidence in our policing. By ensuring minimum levels of neighbourhood policing and dedicated community-based duties, we can enhance public safety, improve community relations and effectively tackle crime. I urge my fellow members of the Committee to support new clauses 15 and 16. Let us take decisive action to strengthen neighbourhood policing and ensure that every community in England and Wales is adequately protected.
Matt Vickers
Neighbourhood policing is the foundation of public trust in our police forces. When officers are visible, engaged and embedded in the communities they serve, crime is deterred, information flows more freely and residents feel safer and more connected. New clause 15 recognises the role of neighbourhood policing in preventing crime and promoting community confidence. Having officers who know the patch and who are known by local residents is invaluable in early intervention, tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting the vulnerable.
I should be grateful for further comments and clarity on how new clauses 15 and 16 will ensure that forces and directly elected police commissioners will have the flexibility to deploy resources based on local need, rather than being constrained by rigid top-down targets. What criteria or metrics will be used to define whether neighbourhood policing levels are sufficient to ensure effective community engagement and crime prevention, and who decides what is effective? Further to that, what role will local communities have under this proposal in shaping what neighbourhood policing will look like in their area?
Luke Taylor
This year, the Met police will cut more than 1,700 officers, PCSOs and staff. I invite the Minister to intervene and correct me on that if necessary, as it would seem to suggest that there was an error in the figure given earlier. A correction cometh not.
That figure will include the loss of the parks police team and of officers placed in schools, who have been so critical in maintaining early intervention in those settings and diverting young people away from a life of crime. They have also improved relationships between young people and the police, ensuring that young people can trust the police when they have information that might lead to crimes being prevented or solved. Those officers are dearly needed today.
The £260 million shortfall below the required budget in London will also create a 10% cut to the forensics teams, which includes the investigation of offences such as tool theft, sexual offences and many other crimes. There will be an 11% cut to historic crime teams and a 25% cut to mounted police, who police festivals, sporting events and the protests we see happening so much more regularly in central London. There will also be a 7% cut to the dog teams that provide support to officers going into dangerous and challenging situations, leaving them unsupported and potentially at risk. There will also be reduced front counter operating hours, and there are even hints about taking firearms off the flying squad.
One might ask, “Why are these cuts relevant to this new clause?” The cuts throughout the Met police will inevitably lead to more abstractions from outer London police forces. In particular, the cuts to mounted police and dog teams will pull officers from outer London, including from Sutton and Cheam, which will leave our high streets less safe, our residents more fearful of being victims of crime and more crimes going unsolved.
That demonstrates the absolute necessity of community policing, as well as the need for guarantees to be put in place so that those cuts do not happen, which will affect my residents and residents across London. New clause 16 would also require an annual report that would give clear and transparent information on officer numbers, PCSO numbers, costs and the real-world impact on crime and public confidence. I urge Members to support this new clause.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will respond directly to the points that have just been made about the Metropolitan police. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Metropolitan police are the best-funded part of policing in England and Wales. They constitute around 25% of policing, and this year they are receiving up to £3.8 billion to provide policing in London—it is worth reflecting on that. They have also received, as has every other police force, additional money to fund neighbourhood policing. I have had reassurance from the Met that the money will actually go into neighbourhood policing, which I think is worth saying.
While I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is concerned about for his constituents, it has to be made clear that we have just come out of 14 years, many of which were years of austerity. I do not wish to labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman’s party was involved in the first five years of austerity, when cuts to the public services were most acute and severe. We are now at the end of that period and this Labour Government are trying to put money back into policing. I have been very clear that more money is going into the Metropolitan police and into every other police force, to build up neighbourhood policing in particular. A little bit of humility on the part of the Liberal Democrats might be helpful.
Luke Taylor
Again, I invite the Minister to respond to the specific point about the 1,700 fewer officers in London. Whatever the circumstances, people today are concerned about crime, including tool theft and sexual offences. We can argue back and forth about the note from the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which said that there was no money left, about austerity or about how long memories go back. If there are to be cuts to the number officers next year in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, and across London, let us address the issues at hand about how we mitigate the impact on our residents tomorrow.
Dame Diana Johnson
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point loud and clear. All members of this Committee are concerned about crime and want to ensure that crime goes down, that victims are supported and that the police are properly funded. We can probably all agree on that in this Committee. On the particular point about the Metropolitan police, I dispute the numbers that he has given. He is right that there will be a loss of PCSOs and police officers in ’24-25, but my understanding is that it is around 1,000, not 1,700. Subject to what happens in the spending review, we will have to look at what happens in future years.
The Metropolitan police have not had the necessary funding for years, which is why they are having to make some really tough decisions. Nobody wants to see a reduction in police officer numbers—I certainly do not, as the Policing Minister. The Home Secretary and I are working to do everything that we can to support police forces and not see reductions in PCSOs and police officers.
New clauses 15 and 16 seek to legislate for minimum levels of neighbourhood policing. I certainly agree with what the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said about the need to address the lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing since 2010, which we can all see, but legislating in the way that she proposes is unnecessarily prescriptive and risks imposing a straitjacket on the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and chief officers.
The Government are already delivering on our commitment to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver a 13,000 increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. By April ’26, there will be 3,000 more officers and PCSOs working in neighbourhood policing than there are today. This is backed up by an additional £200 million in the current financial year, as part of the total funding for police forces of £17.6 billion, which is an increase of £1.2 billion compared with the ’24-25 police funding settlement.
Additionally, the neighbourhood policing guarantee announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April sets out our wider commitment to the public. As part of that guarantee, every neighbourhood in England and Wales will have dedicated teams spending their time on the beat, with guaranteed police patrols in town centres and other hotspot areas at peak times, such as a Friday and Saturday night. Communities will also have a named, contactable officer to tackle the issues facing their communities. There will be a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead in every force, working with residents and businesses to develop tailored action plans to tackle antisocial behaviour, which we all know has blighted communities.
Those measures will be in place from July this year, in addition to the new neighbourhood officers, whom I have already mentioned, who will all be in their roles by next April. Finally, through the Government’s new police standards and performance improvement unit, we will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit will reinforce our commitment to transparency through the regular reporting of workforce data and the annual police grant report.
I wholeheartedly support the sentiment behind the new clauses. We absolutely need to bolster neighbourhood policing, reverse the cuts and set clear minimum standards of policing in local communities. Working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the policing inspectorate, the College of Policing and others, we have the levers to do that. Although the new clauses are well intentioned, I do not believe that they are necessary, so I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Anna Sabine
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, made a couple of points. The first related to who would set the levels of neighbourhood policing under the new clause. Our proposal is that it would be the Home Office, in discussion with local police forces and local councils—the people who know their area best. I can easily see that there would be a way of doing community engagement through councils as part of that discussion, which is another point that he made.
Of course it is important for local police and crime commissioners to have flexibility, but there is a problem with the lack of structure around the numbers for neighbourhood policing. In my constituency, if a big issue, event or activity happens in Bristol, a lot of the local police get taken off there, and we lose our neighbourhood policing. It is similar point to the one that was made earlier.
I welcome the Minister’s response, which was thoughtful as always, and I appreciate the commitment that the Government are making to neighbourhood policing. I hear all of that, but we will still press both new clauses in the group to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 18—Senior manager liability for failure to meet pollution performance commitment levels—
“(1) A person (‘P’) commits an offence where—
(a) P is a senior manager of a water or water and sewerage company (‘C’),
(b) C commits an offence under section [Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels], and
(c) P has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent that offence being committed by C.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘senior manager’ means an individual who plays a significant role in—
(a) the making of decisions about how C’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or
(b) the actual managing or organising of C’s relevant activities;
‘water or water and sewerage company’ has the meaning given in section [Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels].
(3) Where P is charged with an offence under this section, it is a defence for P to show that P was a senior manager of C for such a short time during the relevant period that P could not reasonably have been expected to take steps to prevent that offence being committed by C.
(4) Where P is guilty of an offence under this section, P is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.”
This new clause creates senior manager liability for failure to meet pollution performance commitment levels.
Anna Sabine
New clause 17 addresses the critical issue of pollution performance by water and sewerage companies, and is essential to ensuring accountability and protecting our environment. The new clause would make it an offence for a water or sewerage company to fail to meet its pollution performance commitment levels for three consecutive years. It would also be an offence if the company experiences an increase in total pollution incidents per 10,000 sq km or serious pollution incidents for three consecutive years.
In my constituency, there are two amazing local groups, Friends of the River Frome and Frome Families for the Future, that monitor pollution levels and encourage the community to get engaged in their river. However, like many other groups across the country, they are working in a context of insufficient regulation. The new clause is designed to hold companies accountable for their environmental impact. By imposing fines on those who fail to meet these standards, we would send a clear message that pollution and environmental negligence will not be tolerated. Supporting the new clause means safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring that companies take their environmental responsibilities seriously.
New clause 18 addresses the critical issue of senior manager liability for failure to meet pollution performance commitment levels. It would make it an offence for the senior managers of water and sewerage companies to fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent their companies from committing pollution offences. By holding senior managers accountable, we ensure that those in positions of power are responsible for the environmental impact of their decisions. The data is clear: last year, sewage was pumped into waterways for more than 3.6 million hours. That is unacceptable, and highlights the urgent need for stronger enforcement and accountability.
Supporting these clauses means taking a firm stand against environmental negligence and ensuring that our water companies are managed responsibly. I commend them to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
No one disputes the need for stronger accountability on water pollution, but these new clauses take a headline-grabbing, punitive approach that risks being legally unsound, practically unworkable and counterproductive.
The last Conservative Government took decisive action to tackle water pollution, including announcing the “Plan for Water”, which outlined a comprehensive strategy to enhance water quality and ensure sustainable water resources across England. This initiative addressed pollution, infrastructure and regulatory challenges through co-ordinated efforts involving Government bodies, regulators, water companies, farmers and the public. The strategy committed to water companies speeding up their infrastructure upgrades, bringing forward £1.6 billion for work to start between ’23 and ’25. The plan also ensured that fines from water companies would be reinvested into a new water restoration fund—making polluters pay for any damage they cause to the environment.
On new clause 17, why is the threshold three consecutive years? That seems arbitrary. Water companies are already subject to significant civil penalties, enforcement orders and licence reviews by Ofwat and the Environment Agency. Is the clause necessary, or does it simply duplicate existing mechanisms with a more punitive spin? More widely, what evidence is there that these measures will improve water quality outcomes, rather than just increase legal costs and drive defensive behaviour within companies?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for explaining the intention behind new clauses 17 and 18. The Government have been clear that water companies must accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment. Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator of the water industry, sets water companies’ performance commitments, including those on pollution incidents, in the five-yearly price review process.
Where those performance commitments are not met, companies can incur financial penalties, which are returned to customers through lower bills in the next financial year. As a result of underperformance in the 2023-24 financial year, Ofwat is requiring companies to return £165.2 million to customers. Ofwat has just expanded those performance commitments further for the 2025-2030 period to include storm overflow spills and serious pollution incidents. That means that the regulator is already punishing water companies for failing to meet their pollution commitments.
Furthermore, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, significantly strengthens the power of the regulators and delivers on the Government’s commitment to put failing water companies in special measures. The Act introduced automatic penalties on polluters, and will ban bonuses for water company executives if they fail to meet adequate standards. Before introducing secondary legislation to implement automatic penalties, the Government will consult on the specific offences that will be in scope, and on the value of the penalties.
On the subject of senior management liability, the Water (Special Measures) Act creates a statutory requirement for all water companies to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans. The plans will require companies to set out clear actions and timelines to meaningfully reduce the frequency and seriousness of pollution incidents. Both the company and the chief executive will be personally liable for ensuring a compliant plan and report is published each year. In addition, measures from the Act, which came into force on 25 April, introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment, where senior executives in water companies obstruct investigations by the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
The new clauses would cut across the recently strengthened regulatory regime, with enhanced penalties for the water companies that fail to live up to their obligations and increased powers for the regulator. Given that, the new clauses are unnecessary; indeed, they would add complexity and uncertainty in the regulatory process. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Anna Sabine
I enjoyed the new clauses being called headline grabbing. They are certainly headline grabbing; the whole issue of sewage in our waters has been massively headline grabbing, because the public feel incredibly strongly that our waterways, and the rivers that we use and want to swim in, should not be full of sewage pumped out by private water companies. I think many members of the public would welcome a slightly more punitive approach than we saw under the last Government.
In terms of being unworkable, I think the new clauses are very practical and measurable—I am not sure in what way they are unworkable. Turning to the Minister’s comments, the Lib Dems have said that we welcome many of the directions taken in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but we do not feel it goes far enough. Banning bosses’ bonuses is not the same as making them criminally responsible for some of the actions they are taking in terms of environmental negligence. Again, we will press both new clauses in the group to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Taylor
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There can be no denying that we are entering a new world with the advent of new technologies that fundamentally reshape the relationship between citizens and the state. There is probably no more vivid an example of that than live facial recognition technology, which is rightly causing great concern among people across London and throughout the UK.
I am, for instance, concerned about the installation of permanent cameras in Croydon, just next door to my community in Sutton and Cheam. In Sutton itself, the use of roaming facial recognition cameras has already caused anxiety among local people, not least the thousands of Hongkongers who call Sutton home, many of whom escaped exactly this kind of potentially abusable surveillance from the Chinese Government, only to find it trying to take root in Britain. That anxiety has often been met with the unfair and often disproven riposte that if someone has done something wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
It is undeniable that without proper safeguards, this technology can be a negative force, through either human malpractice or, perhaps just as worryingly, technological shortcomings. Research from the US has shown that the technology can be racially biased, struggling to distinguish between non-white people, because it was trained on white faces. Research from the Alan Turing Institute has shown that a version of the technology developed by Microsoft has a 0% error rate in identifying white men, but a 21% error rate in identifying dark-skinned women. Those would be worrying facts in their own right, but we are talking about liberty and justice—the two cornerstones of our democracy. We must be very careful about adopting technology that undermines that, and any sensible legislator would want safeguards in place.
Anything that further erodes minority communities’ trust in the police must be resisted and avoided. Our neighbours in the EU have done just that, limiting the use of this technology unless it is absolutely necessary for security or rescue, and requiring judicial oversight or an independent administrative authority to facilitate its safe use even in that case. New clause 19 would see us follow our European neighbours in making sure that the technology is deployed only in limited circumstances and with the maximum oversight.
Our proposed measures—including a new oversight body and new powers for the Information Commissioner’s Office to monitor the use of this tech—present a path forward that we urge the Government to take. If we do not, we will continue to languish without a proper legal framework while permanent cameras are installed. For the technology to be embedded before safeguards have been properly considered would be a democratic and civil liberties tragedy and would put us on a path to a creeping digital authoritarianism. To put it another way, it would be unfair even on those who have to use the technology.
Currently, police services across the country seem to set their own rules on usage, without the proper guidance. To protect them from bad intelligence leading to awful miscarriages of justice, they deserve clarity, just as much as the public do, on the right way to make use of this tech. Nobody seriously doubts that this sort of technology and other major advancements in fighting crime will continue to arrive on our shores. The question is how we wield the new powers that they afford us in a judicious manner. That has always been the task for legislators and enforcers. Forgive the trite idiom, but it remains true that with great power comes great responsibility. How we protect privacy and liberty while keeping ourselves safe in the hyper-digital age is a central question of our times.
Matt Vickers
When deployed responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, facial recognition technology is an incredibly valuable tool in modern policing and public protection. It is already being used to identify serious offenders wanted for violent crime, terrorism and child exploitation; to locate vulnerable individuals, including missing children at risk; and to enhance safety in high-risk environments such as transport hubs, major events and public demonstrations. It enables rapid real-time identification without the need for physical contact—something that traditional methods, such as fingerprinting and ID checks, cannot provide in fast-moving situations. It can accelerate investigations, reduce resource demand and ultimately make public spaces safer.
The technology is improving in accuracy, especially when governed by transparent oversight, independent auditing and clear operational boundaries. I would be grateful for further comments on whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government feel that this proposed regulation of this crucial technology could limit the ability of law enforcement to respond swiftly to emerging threats or intelligence-led operations.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out the case for introducing new safeguards for the use of live facial recognition. I agree there need to be appropriate safeguards, but the issue requires careful consideration and I do not think that it can be shoehorned into this Bill.
I say strongly to the hon. Member that live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps keep communities safe. If I may say so, I think that some of his information is a little out of date. Despite what he implied, the use of facial recognition technology is already subject to safeguards, including, among others, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 2008.
I fully accept, however, that there is a need to consider whether a bespoke legislative framework governing the use of live facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes is needed. We need to get this right and balance the need to protect communities from crime and disorder while safeguarding individual rights. To that end, I have been listening to stakeholders and have already held a series of meetings about facial recognition, including with policing, regulators, research institutions, civil society groups and industry, to fully understand the concerns and what more can be done to improve the use of the technology.
I will outline our plans for facial recognition in the coming months. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Member, having had this opportunity to air this important issue, will be content to withdraw his new clause.
Luke Taylor
Based on the comments and reassurances, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause. I would be interested in being involved in any discussions and updates as they come forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Duty to follow strategic priorities of police and crime plan
“(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8(1) (Duty to have regard to police and crime plan), for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.
(3) In section 8(2) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.
(4) In section 8(3) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.
(5) In section 8(4) for ‘have regard to’ substitute ‘follow the strategic priorities of’.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would require Police and Crime Commissioners to follow the strategic priorities of the police and crime plan rather than have regard to it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 requires police and crime commissioners and others to “have regard to” the police and crime plan. The new clause would replace that language with a firmer obligation to “follow the strategic priorities of” the plan. The change would apply consistently across subsections (1) to (4) of section 8.
The primary rationale for the amendment is to strengthen democratic accountability. PCCs are directly elected by the public to represent local views and set the strategic direction for policing. Their police and crime plans are developed following consultation and are expected to reflect community priorities. However, under the current “have regard to” standard, there is only a weak legal duty to consider the plan, and no binding requirement to act in accordance with it. The new clause would address that gap by ensuring that PCCs and, by extension, police forces must follow the strategic priorities that they have set and communicated to the public.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the new clause. As hon. Members will be aware, those vested with responsibility for providing democratic oversight of police forces—whether PCCs or mayors with PCC functions—have an important role in policing across England and Wales. They are responsible for holding their chief constable to account for the performance of their force and for setting, through their police and crime plan, their strategic objectives for the area. In setting police and crime plans, PCCs must consult their chief constable, the public and victims of crime in their area, as well as their local police and crime panel. As the directly elected representatives for policing in their area, PCCs have a choice as to how they implement their plan and the weight they give to each priority.
The new clause would have the effect of placing an inflexible duty on PCCs to follow their own priorities, with no ability to adapt to and reflect changing circumstances. The new clause would also encroach on the operational independence of chief constables. It risks constraining chief constables and the officers under their command, limiting their ability to balance local priorities as set out in the police and crime plan with their own assessment of threat, risk and harm.
In setting their police and crime plan, PCCs and chief constables must also have regard to the strategic policing requirement. If the amendments to the 2011 Act set out in the new clause were made, they would also have the effect of creating an inconsistency, making local police and crime plans the most important instrument for PCCs and others to follow, potentially at the expense of national priorities. The Home Secretary and I have been clear that the Government will work with PCCs and chief constables to set clear expectations for policing on performance and standards, and to ensure that our communities have an effective and efficient police force within their force area.
Through our forthcoming police reform White Paper, we are working closely with policing to explore and develop specific proposals to deliver effective and efficient police forces and to address the challenges faced by policing. That includes ensuring that policing is responsive to national and regional priorities, as well as to local needs. The Home Secretary will set out a road map for police reform in a White Paper to be published later this year, which will consider proposals to strengthen the relationship between PCCs and chief constables in a revised policing protocol. For those reasons, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 35—Stop and search—
“(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 60(1)(a) and (aa) leave out ‘serious.’.”
This new clause lowers the threshold for stop and search to “violence” rather than “serious violence.”
Matt Vickers
New clause 29 would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on specific police activities in areas experiencing high levels of serious crime. It would mandate the inclusion of data from police forces in England and Wales, identifying the areas with the highest rates of serious offences and reporting on three key areas: police presence, the use of stop-and-search powers, and the deployment of live facial recognition technology. The first report would be required within six months of the Act’s passage, with subsequent reports published annually.
The primary objective of the new clause is to improve transparency and accountability in policing where serious crime is most acute. In communities disproportionately affected by violence, organised crime or persistent public disorder, trust in policing is often strained. By requiring detailed public reporting, the new clause would ensure that policing tactics and resourcing in those areas are subject to regular scrutiny by Parliament and the public. It would allow for an informed debate about whether interventions are effective, proportionate and fair.
In particular, the inclusion of data on police officer deployment would ensure a clearer understanding of how police resources are distributed. That is especially important in communities where concerns about under-policing or over-policing are frequently raised. Having a publicly available record of officer presence would allow stakeholders to assess whether high-crime areas are receiving adequate attention and whether local policing strategies are matched to the severity of criminal activity.
The new clause also includes reporting on the use of stop and search powers under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Stop and search remains a contentious, yet extremely powerful tool in combating serious crime. Home Office statistics show that in the year ending 31 March 2023, there were 529,474 stop and searches in England and Wales. A recent study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology analysed London-wide stop-and-search patterns and concluded that if searches had been maintained at the 2008 to 2011 level, approximately 30 fewer knife murders might have occurred each year. By requiring annual data on its use in high-crime data, this new clause promotes responsible policing and ensures the use of the powers is evidence-led, not arbitrary, and open to challenge where necessary. It enables patterns of disproportionality or inefficiency to be identified and addressed through public oversight.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for his suggestions about the police response to violence and other serious offending. However, I believe that the changes contained in the proposed new clauses are unnecessary.
Regarding proposed new clause 29, I agree that transparency is important. That is why the Home Office already annually publishes extensive data on police recorded crime and the use of police powers. That data includes the number of stop and searches conducted, broken down by individual community safety partnership and police force areas. In addition, members of the public have access to detailed crime and stop and search maps on police.uk, which use monthly data directly provided by police forces. Police forces also publish detailed information on deployments of live facial recognition.
Turning to proposed new clause 35, I note that stop and search is a vital tool for tackling crime, particularly knife crime, but it must be used in a fair and effective way. That is particularly true of section 60 powers, which are the focus of the proposed new clause. Such powers may be authorised under certain conditions in response to, or anticipation of, serious violence, and allow officers to search individuals without the normal requirement for reasonable suspicion. The powers are rightly subject to strict constraints.
In practical terms, changing the threshold from “serious violence” to “violence” would not represent a meaningful change. Section 60 provides powers to search for offensive weapons or dangerous implements, and any use of such items is, by definition, serious violence. In the year to March 2024, the latest for which data is available, 5,145 stop and searches were undertaken in England and Wales under section 60 powers. They resulted in 71 people being found carrying offensive weapons and 212 arrests made on suspicion of a range of offences. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw his proposed new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 33 seeks to amend section 5(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which currently states:
“For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.”
New clause 33 would replace that with:
“For the purposes of this section, a belief must be both honestly held and reasonable.”
The change would modify the legal standard for the lawful excuse defence under section 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act, which allows a defendant to claim they believe the property owner consented to the damage. Under the current law, the belief needs only to be honest, regardless of its reasonableness. The new clause would require that the belief also be reasonable, introducing an objective standard alongside the subjective one.
In various areas of criminal law, defences based on belief require that it be honest and reasonable. For instance, in self-defence cases, the defendant’s belief in the necessity of force must be reasonable. Aligning the standard in criminal damage cases with those principles promotes consistency and fairness across the legal system. Public confidence in the legal system can be undermined when defendants are acquitted based on defences that appear unreasonable or disconnected from common sense. By introducing an objective standard, the proposed new clause would reinforce the integrity of the justice system, and ensure that legal defences are applied in a manner that aligns with societal expectations.
The proposed amendment to section 5(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 would introduce a necessary, objective standard to the lawful excuse defence by requiring that beliefs about owner consent be both honest and reasonable. The change would promote consistency with other areas of law, prevent potential abuses of the defence, balance the right to protest with property rights and seek to enhance public confidence in the justice system.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 33.
It might be helpful for hon. Members if I briefly explain how the Criminal Damage Act 1971 works. The Act criminalises a range of activities, but the offence we are focused on today is the act of destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse. “Lawful excuse” is not defined. However, section 5(2)(a) makes it clear that if the defendant honestly believes that the person who was entitled to consent to the destruction or damage has given consent, or would have consented if they knew of the circumstances, the defendant has a lawful excuse. For example, it could be said that someone has a lawful excuse if the owner of a car would have consented to their damaging it to help a person who was trapped in it to get out.
Additionally, under section 5(2)(b) of the 1971 Act, if the defendant damages property to protect their own or someone else’s property, and they honestly believe both that the property needs immediate protection and that their actions are reasonable, they have a lawful excuse. Section 5(3), to which the new clause relates, specifies that it does not matter whether a person’s belief is reasonable or justified. It just needs to be honest, even if it is an honest belief induced by intoxication, stupidity or forgetfulness.
The new clause seeks to change the law so that where a defendant seeks to rely on belief in consent, or belief in the necessity of protecting property as a lawful excuse for criminal damage, their belief must be “reasonable” as well as honest. This would narrow the application of the defence, and we consider doing so unnecessary. The law is already designed to strike the right balance and ensure that a wide variety of factors are taken into account, without widening the law too far.
For example, if a defendant tries to argue that a person would have consented to the damage of their property if they had known the circumstances, they need to demonstrate how that relates specifically to the damage caused. Some assessment of the wider context will be necessary to determine whether someone has a lawful excuse.
Recent cases involving damage to property following protests have also interpreted the operation of this defence narrowly. For example, acting in furtherance of a protest cannot be used as a lawful excuse where the damage caused is more than minimal for public property. We cannot see any evidence or rationale that suggests that the defence is being used in spurious contexts or abused in any way. Of course, if the hon. Member has specific evidence or examples, we would, of course, consider them. Until then, there is no justification or need to restrict the operation of the defence further. For that reason, I urge him to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would mandate that the Secretary of State, through regulations, grant police access to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ tobacco track and trace system. Such access would enable law enforcement to determine the provenance of tobacco products sold by retailers, specifically to identify whether those products were stolen. According to HMRC, the illicit market in tobacco duty and related VAT was £2.8 billion in 2021-22, preying on the most disadvantaged of communities. In 2023, about 6.7 billion counterfeit and contraband cigarettes were consumed, representing one in four cigarettes, thus undermining progress towards a smoke-free England by 2030.
With the negative impact that the illicit tobacco market has on communities and with UK revenue in mind, it is paramount that our police forces be provided with the resources required to counter the organised crime groups that dominate the illicit tobacco market. The sale of illicit tobacco on the black market also poses significant risks to public health, with illegal tobacco often containing five times the standard level of cadmium, six times as much lead, 1.6 times more tar and 1.3 times more carbon monoxide than regulated cigarettes and rolling tobacco.
The illicit tobacco market poses significant challenges, including revenue loss for the Government and health risks for consumers. Professor Emmeline Taylor’s report, “Lighting Up”, emphasises the potential of TT&T in identifying and prosecuting offenders involved in the illegal tobacco trade. Granting police access to TT&T would strengthen efforts to dismantle organised crime networks profiting from counterfeit tobacco sales.
Giving the police access to TT&T technology has the potential to disrupt the illicit tobacco trade and has been highlighted by the National Business Crime Centre, which argues that police utilisation of TT&T would allow them to routinely check tobacco sold by local retailers to ensure legitimacy, thus shrinking the pool of buyers for criminal gangs and lowering demand for stolen tobacco, helping police to tackle organised crime and safeguard legitimate business.
As a signatory to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, the UK is obligated to implement measures that curb illicit tobacco trade. Providing police with TT&T access aligns with those commitments by enhancing the traceability and accountability of tobacco products throughout the supply chain. Illicit tobacco sales undermine legitimate retailers who comply with regulations and pay due taxes. Empowering police to identify and act against illegal tobacco products helps to level the playing field, ensuring that law-abiding businesses are not disadvantaged by competitors engaging in unlawful practices.
With that in mind, the Opposition believe that new clause 38, which would grant police access to the UK TT&T system to help determine whether a retailer has obtained stolen or counterfeit tobacco illegally, is necessary to facilitate the police in carrying out their duty in delivering the current plans for smoke-free England 2030. It will help to claim back revenue currently lost to the black market trade of tobacco and protect public health by disrupting the trade in these bogus products.
Dame Diana Johnson
New clause 38 seeks to grant the police access to the tobacco track and trace system, as we have just heard. The scourge of the illicit tobacco trade threatens the health of UK citizens, robs the public purse of billions of pounds and funds the wider activities of organised crime. All businesses in the tobacco supply chain are required to register within the track and trace system, and individual tobacco products are tracked from the point of manufacture up to the point of retail. The track and trace system includes a reporting platform that enables nominated authorities to access registry data, traceability data for individual products and UK-wide tobacco market data.
I understand the intention behind the shadow Minister’s new clause, and I know that we both share the same goal of working with our law enforcement agencies to tackle illicit tobacco. The principle of maximising the use of traceability data in these efforts to tackle illicit tobacco is sound. Existing legislation strictly limits who can access traceability and the purposes for which it may be used. At the moment, only HMRC and trading standards may access this data.
I reassure the Opposition that engagement is already under way between the police and HMRC to investigate opportunities for extending access for the police to traceability data. When that engagement is complete, the Government will consider whether it is appropriate to bring forward any necessary legislative changes. However, I do not wish, at this stage, to pre-empt the outcome of that engagement through legislation. In the light of those reassurances, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the motion.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would introduce a new statutory offence of soliciting prostitution in exchange for rent by inserting proposed new section 52A into the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It would criminalise the act of causing, inciting or attempting to cause or incite someone to engage in prostitution in return for free accommodation or discounted rent. The clause makes this a hybrid offence: on summary conviction, the penalty is up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine; on indictment, it is up to seven years’ imprisonment. It would also allow for a banning order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, preventing convicted offenders from acting as landlords.
The “sex for rent” arrangement—where landlords exchange accommodation for free or at a discount in return for sexual relations with tenants—is a problem that has become increasingly common for house hunters in England, particularly in London. In response to this emerging issue, the last Government launched a call for evidence, which closed in the summer of 2023. It sought views on relevant characteristics, circumstances and any additional protective or preventive measures that respondents considered necessary. Given the seriousness of the issue, it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend to publish the findings from this call for evidence, as some of the data could inform debates such as this one.
According to research by polling company YouGov carried out on behalf of the housing charity Shelter, nearly one in 50 women in England have been propositioned for sex for rent in the last five years, with 30,000 women offered such housing arrangements between March 2020 and January 2021. Many victims of sex-for-rent schemes feel trapped, ashamed or powerless to report the abuse due to their dependency on accommodation. By clearly defining this as a criminal offence and providing real consequences for offenders, including banning orders, this clause sends a strong message: exploitation through coercive housing arrangements will not be tolerated.
The charity National Ugly Mugs, an organisation that works towards ending all violence towards sex workers, gave the case study of a tenant who, during the pandemic facing financial hardship, was approached by her landlord with a proposal to reduce her rent and utility costs in exchange for sexual acts and explicit images. Unable to afford alternative accommodation at the time, she felt she had little choice but to agree. Since then, the landlord has regularly turned up at the property uninvited and intoxicated, demanding sex and refusing to leave. She has lived under the constant threat of eviction and homelessness if she does not comply with his demands. The new clause represents a crucial advance in safeguarding vulnerable individuals from exploitation within the housing sector. By explicitly criminalising the act of soliciting sexual services in exchange for accommodation, it addresses a significant gap in the current legal framework.
The new clause would not only reinforce the seriousness of such offences through stringent penalties, but would empower authorities to impose banning orders, thereby preventing convicted individuals from further exploiting their position as landlords. This measure would send a clear and unequivocal message that leveraging housing and security for sexual gain is a reprehensible abuse of power that will not be tolerated. It would underscore a commitment to protecting the dignity and rights of tenants, ensuring that all individuals have access to safe and respectful living conditions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
New clause 41, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West, would make it an offence to provide free or discounted rent in exchange for sex. I reassure the hon. Member that the Government firmly believe that the exploitation and abuse that can occur through so-called sex-for-rent arrangements has no place in our society. However, we have existing offences that can and have been used to prosecute this practice, including causing or controlling prostitution for gain.
I know the hon. Member will appreciate that this is a complex issue. I reassure the Committee that the Government will continue working closely with the voluntary and community sector, the police and others to ensure that the safeguarding of women remains at the heart of our approach. We are carefully considering these issues as part of our wider work on violence against women and girls. We are working to publish the new cross-government violence against women and girls strategy later this year. We will be considering all forms of adult sexual exploitation and the findings from the previous Government’s consultation on sex for rent as part of that.
Given that commitment, I hope the hon. Member will be content to withdraw the new clause, although I very much doubt that he will. On that note, I have tabled many Opposition amendments, but I very rarely pushed them to a vote. On this new clause, as on any others, the hon. Member or any other Members of his party are very welcome to approach us for a meeting, or to come and talk to any of us about how to progress this or any issue. I do not wish to school them on opposition, but that is a much more likely way of achieving the ultimate aim. In this instance, his aim is the same as mine—protecting people who are sexually exploited. To date, no approaches have been made, but they are always welcome.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we adjourn, I want to let the Committee know that I will not be chairing the next sitting—it will be a more esteemed Chair than myself. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for today’s contributions and their attention to the Bill, all our fantastic Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard, the hidden but wonderful broadcasting team, and of course the hard-working officials from the Home Office. Thank you all very much indeed.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
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
Cold and Damp Homes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of cold and damp homes.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Western; this is the first time that I have served under your chairship. I rise to speak about a crisis that continues to affect millions of people across the UK and goes to the very heart of the inequality, inefficiency and injustice embedded in our housing and energy systems.
I welcome the Government’s new warm homes plan, which includes the warm homes social housing fund and the warm homes local grant, through which social housing residents, lower-income householders and renters will receive funded energy efficiency upgrades, including insulation and low-carbon heating. However, there are a number of opportunities to truly protect all from living in cold or damp homes.
As part of its United for Warm Homes campaign, Friends of the Earth published a joint report in 2024 with the Institute of Health Equity, “Left Out in the Cold”, which is one of the most comprehensive documents on the issue. It reveals that 9.6 million households in this country—nearly one in three homes—are at risk of living in cold, damp and energy inefficient homes. Many of them are in constituencies like mine.
Leeds is home to a vibrant mix of residents: young professionals, students, families and retirees. It has a range of housing, much of it Victorian and Edwardian stock that is woefully under-insulated. In my constituency, Leeds Central and Headingley, 44.8% of constituents live in private rentals, compared with a national average of 19.4%. Citizens Advice found that one in three private renters could not heat their homes to a comfortable temperature over winter 2024, with millions living in damp and mouldy conditions. Last summer, 40% of renters—4.3 million people, including 1.16 million children —were living in a home with mould or damp. That is very concerning, given the impact that cold and mould can have on people’s physical and mental health, as well as the high energy bills that people face when they need to heat draughty homes.
This crisis does not start and end in winter. Cold, damp and poorly ventilated homes cause year-round problems, from exacerbating asthma and bronchitis to increasing anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions. My office frequently receives damp and mould cases and works closely with the private rented sector team at the council to resolve them. All too often, constituents are told that the issue is their fault. They are typically blamed for drying laundry indoors or for not opening windows.
The problems usually worsen over time and become much harder to fix. My constituent Angela reported damp last year, but the issue persisted into this year. By then, water was dripping from the living room and kitchen ceilings. She had been diagnosed with a lung infection, which the GP linked directly to the damp conditions in her home. She was eventually forced to live exclusively in her bedroom, which was the only room that was less affected.
My constituency is home to the highest population of students in England and Wales. Student accommodation is often rife with damp. Large house shares are often the only economical option for full-time students. Student houses of seven or more struggle to balance keeping the house warm with ventilating it from drying laundry, cooking and bathing. I have heard from students in my constituency who are not even given autonomy over their heating, which their landlord controls remotely.
Students are living with year-round cold symptoms that are due to the quality of their housing. As their tenancies run year to year, damp issues are often painted over, both physically and metaphorically, by landlords who know that a fresh cohort of tenants will be in within 12 months. Ongoing respiratory issues, possessions ruined by damp and cold, the feeling of insignificance and being disregarded by the landlord—these are not the standards that we should be setting for students’ quality of life in this country.
Indoor air quality is a large part of the problem. Breathe Easy Homes, which is delivered by Care and Repair in partnership with Leeds city council and the integrated care board, works to address issues with indoor air quality that can trigger attacks in children with a diagnosis of asthma or other respiratory conditions. The team is working hard to ensure that all families have safe living conditions, but the battle with damp is relentless.
It is not a new statement that cold and/or damp homes exacerbate existing health inequalities. However, too many people are forced to survive in day-to-day, all-consuming living conditions. Today’s debate is an opportunity to focus on how the warm homes plan can go further to ensure that all barriers are removed to securing warm homes for all. That includes the 9.6 million homes that are at risk of being cold, damp and energy-inefficient.
The Government’s warm homes plan will be a vital step to delivering home upgrades for millions of people, to make their homes warmer and healthier, and reduce their bills. We also welcome the Government’s plans to extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill and to update minimum energy efficiency standards to energy performance certificate rating C in the private rented sector.
A researcher at the University of Leeds, Rebecca Sale, is examining the impacts of poor indoor air quality. Her research shows how we spend up to 90% of our time indoors. Indoor air pollution can be hard to manage; the pollutants are invisible and are produced from everyday products and practices. The quality of the air is important for atmospheric services in the home, which includes the provision of suitable air for respiration, the regulation of heating and cooling, and the state of the air for comfortable living.
Indoor air quality is much less recognised than outdoor air quality. Damp and mould may be particularly prevalent in UK households due to draughty and leaky buildings. That partly relates to the legacy of coal burning in homes, which necessitated high levels of ventilation. Rebecca’s research explains how it can be hard to achieve a balance between insulating homes to improve energy efficiency while also allowing ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality. New building standards and regulations have meant that buildings are highly insulated and airtight. Although that makes homes warmer in winter, in hotter periods there is an increased requirement for ventilation. Insulating a home or making it more airtight can increase the incidence of mould if moisture is not being ventilated out of the home.
Older people, pregnant women, children and babies are especially vulnerable to the health impacts of indoor air pollution. A well-known and extremely important example is that of Awaab Ishak, the two-year-old boy from Rochdale who tragically died in 2020 as a result of respiratory arrest caused by the damp and mould in his family home. We know how important indoor air quality issues are, so I thank the Government again for extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, in which many children live.
Many older people still struggle to heat their home during winter, particularly those who are just above the pension credit limit and so no longer receive the winter fuel payment; I have met many people in that situation on the doorstep. It is therefore clear that we need an all-round, holistic and comprehensive approach to overcoming the problem of cold and damp homes.
Upgrading homes is one of the key ways in which the Government can put money back into people’s pockets while improving living standards. For the warm homes plan to be successful, it must ensure that upgrades are affordable for low-income households by providing grants tapered by household income and introducing Government-backed low interest rate loans for households that cannot afford to borrow money to carry out the work that is needed.
We also need to overhaul the consumer protections landscape to ensure that people are confident in the process and can easily put things right if they go wrong. We are encouraged by the announcement from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that it will address the current patchwork of protections that allow rogue traders to operate in this area. The Government need to provide access to free, independent and personalised advice throughout the home upgrade journey, including additional case-handling support for vulnerable households, which may need more support. Additionally, energy-inefficient homes are responsible for some 14% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Meeting our net zero targets will be impossible without tackling them.
I urge the Minister and colleagues across the House to join me in calling for a fully funded nationwide warm homes plan; a legal commitment to bring all homes to EPC rating C by 2035; fair support for renters and the most vulnerable, particularly our youngest and our eldest; and recognition that this is not just a housing issue, but a public health issue, an economic issue and a moral issue.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. The state of our private rental properties is an appalling open secret. One in four private renters live in fuel poverty; 1.6 million children are living in privately rented homes that are damp or mouldy. That is a shocking situation.
As we know, the UK has some of the oldest and coldest houses in Europe. More than half of tenants had issues with damp or mould last year. In my constituency of Bath, 31% had problems with hot water or heating, and 21% of privately rented homes do not meet the decent homes standard. These numbers are simply not acceptable. We need tougher inspections and much higher standards.
As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley has pointed out, serious health risks can arise from mouldy and damp conditions. It was not long ago that a toddler in Rochdale died from prolonged exposure to black mould, yet MPs still hear every winter from constituents who are dealing with terrible cases of damp and mould. A constituent in Bath recently wrote to me that their walls are black with mould. Now, after months of relentless coughing, they have been referred for asthma testing. Another constituent described fungi growing up from the floor. Damp and decay have already damaged their belongings, and now they fear that the place they call home is no longer fit to live in.
Such cases are prevalent across the country. One in four of the complaints that Citizens Advice receives is about disrepair, damp, mould or excessive cold. Is it any wonder that the NHS spends £1.5 billion every year treating respiratory illnesses? There have been small-scale trials in which heating vouchers were given to at-risk households as a preventive measure, helping to avoid illness and reduce pressure on health services. Why not roll it out nationally?
It is not just privately rented properties with unaccountable landlords that have these issues. Many of the cases that I hear about come from tenants in social housing. My largest social housing association, Curo, has made it clear that housing providers face soaring costs. Repairs, decarbonisation, regeneration and new home delivery must all be funded from increasingly stretched social rents. Social rents are set by the Government using a “consumer prices index plus 1%” formula, but successive Governments have capped, cut and changed this model. In 2003, for example, there was a 7% rent cap, despite the CPI reaching 11% that year; meanwhile, the average operating cost per household unit rose by 11%.
The Government have ambitious house building targets, but that mismatch leaves providers struggling to maintain existing homes, let alone build new ones. Because funding is overstretched, increasing numbers of social tenants are not getting the repairs and upgrades that their properties need to prevent damp and mould in the first place. I ask the Government to look at this closely. A fundamental review of the rent and capital subsidy regime will make sure that providers can provide homes that are well maintained and managed, while also meeting their requirements to improve, regenerate and build new social housing.
At the heart of this regeneration must be a programme of home insulation, which is something that Liberal Democrats have been asking about for a long time. Well-insulated homes stay warmer, so insulation is key to reducing energy bills. Much of the housing stock in Bath is Georgian and grade II-listed. These homes are in dire need of insulation, but listed buildings are more expensive to insulate because of the specific regulatory requirements. For many of my constituents, the cost of insulating their homes is just too high.
The Government have announced the warm homes local grant, aimed at improving the efficiency of low-income, low energy-performance homes. However, in the recent funding award, Bath and North East Somerset council will receive a fraction of the amount that it requested: just 26% of what was felt to be needed to carry out the work following consultation with the warm homes team. The existing consortium was awarded approximately £11 million over two years under the home upgrade grant phase 2. The programme has improved 80 homes in Bath, helping fuel-poor residents to save money on energy bills and benefit from a more comfortable and climate-friendly home, but it has been cut under the warm homes grant. The council is now receiving a reduced budget of just £4.5 million a year over three years.
Thousands of homes in Bath are eligible for the warm homes grant, but a very small fraction will receive it. The programme is likely to be oversubscribed; I understand that there is a waiting list from the previous scheme that will account for the first year of upgrades. The ability to carry out funded work on homes helps to alleviate fuel poverty, improve health and reduce carbon emissions. Reducing the budget will have knock-on effects on all those areas.
The other national awards reflect a similarly bleak picture. Once again, we had a winter in which our constituents suffered in cold and damp homes. I am not aware of any public acknowledgment from the Government that funding for home energy upgrades has been cut. I ask the Minister whether that represents a rowing back on the targets in the warm homes plan, or whether it is a reallocation of resources in the warm homes plan. The Liberal Democrats propose a 10-year insulation programme, starting with free insulation for the most vulnerable homes. If we want to reduce household energy bills, insulating homes is the place to start, so I hope that the Government will sincerely consider that.
The state of our rental housing, both private and social, is simply not good enough. It is one of the many failures of the previous Conservative Government, so the new Government must now step up and deal with the problem. The stories from my constituents in Bath are echoed across the country: damp walls, black mould and cold, unliveable homes. We know the solution—higher standards, proper funding for repairs and investment in insulation—but we continue to see piecemeal action and shrinking budgets. I urge the Government to act fast so all our constituents can live in safe, warm and secure housing.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I apologise for my one-minute lateness. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his excellent opening speech. I recognised a number of the points that he outlined, because the issue comes up in my inbox from my constituents across Vauxhall and Camberwell Green.
Like the Leeds Central and Headingley constituency, Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is home to a large number of students and young people who are just starting out in work. As we all know, many of them end up at the cheaper end of the housing market, often in smaller, older properties that may be more susceptible to damp and expensive to heat. We must not think, just because a person is young, that such homes are not extremely damaging to their health. Imagine a young person trying to revise for their final exams in a cramped room where damp crawls up the wall. Some will be trying to save for a deposit and get a foothold in a career, all the while knowing that every day after work, they return to a home that will make them physically and mentally ill. That is the reality for so many people across the country.
Many want to tackle the situation directly with their landlords, but they are afraid of being evicted into a housing market where they can barely find somewhere else to live and barely afford somewhere else. That is unacceptable at any age. It is critical that the Renters’ Rights Bill is successful not only in addressing the misbalance between landlords and tenants, but in helping councils to ensure that every home is safe and properly fit for habitation.
We must also tackle the stigma around social housing. An attitude is developing that people in social housing are lucky to have a home. It is not a privilege to have a home, or to have a home that is not covered in damp and mould. That is the bare minimum that any of us should expect, yet many tenants have been told that the cold and damp in their homes is their fault. They have been told to open the windows, even in the cold months, to avoid mould. Why should people be expected to freeze because their home is not fit for purpose? Yet that is what we are asking many people to do up and down the country.
We all know there is a housing crisis. That means we have people who simply cannot say no, even when the property they are viewing is filled with damp and mould. There is no excuse for properties to be in that condition.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady agree with my social housing provider, Curo, that it is impossible for social housing providers to both build the new social and affordable homes that are required and maintain homes to a decent standard?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for making that important point, which many registered social landlords and local authorities have raised with the Select Committee in various evidence sessions. They are struggling. Many housing associations are saying that they are spending more on repairs and maintenance than actually building. They all want to contribute and support the Government in their agenda to build 1.5 million new homes, but, frankly, they are struggling. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase rental properties’ energy efficiency, so that no tenants end up paying extortionate energy bills in inefficient homes.
What steps has the Minister taken to work with councils to give them not just extra powers, but the real ability to enforce standards in cold and damp homes across the housing sector, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has just highlighted? What support is the Minister providing so that they can maintain their own stock and not leave social housing tenants facing unacceptable conditions?
We are coming into the summer months, when a number of tenants will be able to enjoy their homes, but winter is just around the corner. It is important that the Government lay out the additional work they will do with private rented and social landlords to tackle this important issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I apologise for being approximately 55 seconds late, but we were rushing. Thank you for helping us and for letting us take part in the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for leading today’s debate on this important issue. He set the scene admirably. All the detail that he gave helps all of us to focus on what we need to do. This is one of those issues that arise in all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We all hear of these issues from our constituents. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referred to her constituents and the information she gets from them; we all can say the same. Cold and damp are among the biggest problems when it comes to housing in my constituency.
As chair of the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group, I am fully aware of the problems of cold and damp in domestic homes and commercial buildings. I hear about it from my constituents regularly. Some 60% of the housing cases my staff deal with are transfers, and 40% of those are about damp and mould. Some of the pictures that they have seen are extraordinary, so it is good to be here to discuss the issue and see what we can do.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. He responds to the questions we ask with honesty and clarity. We look forward to the answers that we will get today.
According to National Energy Action, approximately 40% of households in Northern Ireland are classified as being in fuel poverty, meaning that they spend more than 10% of their income on energy costs. That, I think, highlights the issue for many, especially at a time when money is tight and people are not able to stretch it as far as they would like. In addition, social housing stock in Northern Ireland is notably energy inefficient. Many homes lack adequate insulation, leading to higher housing costs and more vulnerability to cold and damp conditions.
A little while back, a constituent who was residing in a Housing Executive property that had excessive damp and mould in both bedrooms came into my office. A little girl of the age of four slept in one of those rooms, and her mother was increasingly concerned about the health issues that can come with cold and damp. That is often forgotten. We tend to focus on the physicality —how it looks and the smell that may come from mould. It is no secret that damp and mould can lead to respiratory issues and exacerbate the symptoms of asthma and cardiovascular disease. I am also chair of the APPG for respiratory health, and we have worked closely on those issues. With a double chair hat on, as chair of both the healthy homes and buildings APPG and the APPG for respiratory health, those issues have combined to put the focus on these things today.
I want to be respectful to Government, as I always try to be, but 10 million pensioners across the United Kingdom have lost their winter fuel payment, and it is projected that those cuts will push an additional 50,000 pensioners into relative poverty each year from 2024 to 2029. In some years, as many as 100,000 people will be affected. Often, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities face higher energy bills and so are disproportionately affected by the cuts, which ultimately will plunge more people into poverty this winter and make it harder for them to heat their homes. That means more cold homes, more damp and more mould, which the Government will single-handedly allow by removing this payment.
There has been some indication in the past few days that the Labour Government are reconsidering this policy. I hope that they are. It would be a positive step forward. I hope that the final decision will be that winter fuel payments will be reinstated. Elderly people who suffer with health issues like the ones I mentioned are much more likely to become ill as a result of a cold home. I cannot stress enough how important it is that the Government commit to reversing this brash and wrong decision.
NEA has estimated that, across the United Kingdom, on average more than 10,000 people die each year due to living in a cold home. It is important to put the problem into figures, because, unfortunately, such a death toll gives us a better idea of what is happening. In England and Wales, excess winter deaths rose by nearly 20% last winter. That is another indication of where we are going. Those figures are shocking. The Government must work more closely with social housing associations and landlords to ensure that people can afford to heat their homes adequately, and are not forced to decide between eating a meal or putting the heating on.
This is a UK-wide issue that must be given the attention it deserves and tackled alongside the devolved Administrations —back home, the Department for Communities. More must be done to support pensioners who are struggling after the loss of their winter fuel payment, and to help tenants, many of whom are families in social housing, whose housing is not habitable or up to scratch. It is time for change. I think that the Minister is committed to it. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this important debate. As he rightly set out, many of our issues stem from the fact that so much of our housing stock dates to the Georgian and Victorian periods. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) rightly pointed out that the UK has some of the oldest and coldest homes in Europe, and that the NHS is spending £1.5 billion a year on treating respiratory illnesses. Hopefully, investing in warmer homes would bring down that cost. In Wales alone, over 600,000 households—nearly half of all Welsh homes—are estimated to be in fuel poverty, with more than 100,000 in extreme fuel poverty. The crisis is not just about rising energy bills or cold weather; it is rooted in the very buildings we live in. The UK and Wales especially, as we have heard, have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Many of the homes in Wales were built before 1919, long before insulation or energy efficiency were even considered. As a result, a huge number of houses are cold, damp and impossible to heat efficiently. Many still rely on outdated boilers, lack double glazing or have walls that leak heat faster than we can generate it.
The consequences are not just physical discomfort or financial strain; cold homes are making people sick. They are contributing to the incidence of respiratory disease, heart conditions, mental health issues and, tragically, avoidable deaths in winter. This is costing every single one of us. The NHS in England alone spends around £1.5 billion a year treating conditions linked to cold and damp homes. In Wales, the annual cost is estimated to be £67 million. That money could be spent on frontline care, rather than on treating problems that could have been prevented by better housing.
The costs go even further. Fuel poverty means lost workdays and reduced productivity due to illness; children underperforming at school because they are too cold or too sick to learn; increased national energy use and demand from homes that haemorrhage heat; growing household debt from people falling behind on unaffordable energy bills; and less money in the economy as a whole as incomes get swallowed up by ballooning heating bills.
We are stuck in a vicious cycle that affects not just the poorest but all of us through higher public spending and lost economic potential. Unfortunately, Government responses have been far too slow. In Wales, the flagship warm homes programme is woefully inadequate. At the current pace, it could take more than 130 years to insulate every fuel-poor household in Wales—a staggering statistic that shows just how far behind Labour in Wales is on this issue.
It does not have to be this way. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have proposed a bold but realistic solution, providing £1.75 billion over five years to retrofit homes, prioritising those in or near fuel poverty. This plan could create 10,000 jobs, generate £2.2 billion for the economy and, most importantly, transform lives. For rural areas and farmers, there are huge opportunities here too, with insulation using Welsh wool now playing a major part in existing insulation programs.
On a recent visit, I saw at first hand the installation of protective loft insulation in Brecon by Loft Boarding South Wales, a local, family-run, green growth business. It was very clear to me that insulation programmes offer economic benefits not only for consumers, but through the skilled jobs that such programmes provide.
Across the UK, the Liberal Democrats are calling for urgent action, including a 10-year emergency home insulation programme to upgrade Britain’s cold, inefficient housing stock, and the introduction of an energy social tariff—a targeted pricing structure that would lower heating bills for the most vulnerable. We will of course continue to press the Government to reverse their disastrous cuts to the winter fuel allowance—although current briefings to the media from different Ministers make it very difficult for us all to decipher where the Government are at on that issue.
These measures are not just ambitious; they are necessary, and must be in place before the next winter bites. Fuel poverty is a national disgrace, but it is also a national opportunity. By investing in energy-efficient homes, we can cut carbon emissions, reduce health inequalities, lower NHS costs, boost the economy and improve national security all at once.
The best time to introduce an emergency insulation programme was before Putin launched his brutal invasion of Ukraine. The second best time would be now. Let us start thinking of insulation not as a luxury, but as a public good. Let us stop managing the symptoms of cold homes and start curing the cause. In one of the richest nations on earth, no one should have to choose between heating and eating.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this debate.
It was the English Army officer and playwright Guy du Maurier who wrote that every Englishman’s home is his castle. In that phrase, he summed up the immense feelings of pride and belonging that people should feel about their home. Whether they are homeowners or renters, it should always be the case that everyone in this country—every child, every parent, every pensioner—can live in a home that is warm, dry and safe. I know that all colleagues in this House will agree that that should be the bare minimum.
The hon. Member’s timing in calling this debate is, as usual, perfect—it is almost as good as his timing in arriving at the debate with 30 seconds to spare. Maybe he should think about entering a marathon with sprinting like that—
Paul Holmes
Good luck to him—I hope he sends his sponsorship details to every Member in the House. He outlined a very important case. Whatever party and constituency we represent, we will all have received the bog-standard response from a housing association or council saying that residents who have damp and mould have had their mould wash put in, and they need to keep their windows open and they need to stop using the tumble dryer indoors.
It is not good enough. All Members in this House need to push harder on the sector, and we need to push harder in raising the concerns of our constituents who have those problems. We must all do better, and there is much more to do.
In that spirit, I refer to the fantastic speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). She set out the clear conflict in the social sector between building more homes and ensuring investment to keep standards up in the housing stock. Those concerns have been raised by the sector with me, as shadow Housing Minister. I would not go as far as to say that I agree with the hon. Lady that it is impossible, but it is certainly a lot harder. I myself used to work for the largest housing association in the United Kingdom. We consistently had a line back to the previous Government; we wanted to be ambitious, and we absolutely wanted to commit to making sure that we had decent homes. The issue is that, with homebuilding targets relying on the old profit model, not-for-profit companies get stuck trying to deliver those targets. We need to do better at making sure that the sector is supported.
I am a great fan of the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). She said that there is still a taboo around social housing. She is absolutely correct. I am proud to have grown up on council estates in New Cross, Bermondsey and then Lewisham. My parents still live in their council house. In all parties, we should express our support for people who live in council housing. For many, it is a great step up and a security blanket. I would be the first to admit that the last Government did not go far enough in supporting the housing and social sector. I am determined to change that, because I was created and grew up in the sector myself.
Every home should be a place of pride, safety and stability. That sense of pride is shattered when people are handed keys to a new home built with shoddy workmanship, incomplete fittings or insufficient insulation, or when people’s homes are not looked after properly, with poor repairs and maintenance regimes of housing associations or private landlords. They need to be supported more. On new builds, the last Government did important work to make new homes fit for the future, including by improving insulation standards, but where insulation is still lacking, we need urgent action. I welcome the new responsibilities given to Ofgem to oversee repairs and remediation in this area.
This debate is not just about building new homes to a suitable standard; it is also vital to legislate for the proper and safe maintenance of the existing and ageing stock. I am pleased that in the last Government we passed the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2024, a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens the powers of the regulator of social housing. The Act introduced Awaab’s law, setting strict limits for social landlords to deal with hazards like damp and mould. The tragic death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak—I used to share an office with his MP, before he left this place, so I saw the tragic case borne out in real time—was caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his home and is a heartbreaking reminder of what can go wrong when we fail to act.
Such a tragedy should never have happened, and we must ensure it never happens again. There must be nowhere for rogue landlords to hide—either private landlords or social landlords. While of course holding this Minister and Government to account, I will continue to work with them to build on the progress we have made in protecting tenants from dangerous living conditions.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for his open and honest speech. I know that he cares passionately about this area. Does he agree that the previous Government could have helped on the really important issue of no-fault evictions? So many tenants were in properties where there was too much damp and mould, did not say anything through fear of being evicted, but then lo and behold, found themselves being evicted through no fault of their own.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is correct to say that there are areas in which we could have gone further. Some of that could have been met by actions we brought forward, such as a new housing ombudsman and making sure that regulation was better, but I do not think we worked at pace to do that as fast as we could. We need to learn from that, as I said openly to the Minister. I congratulate him on his position, as there is no one in the House who knows more about the housing sector than him, having prepared the manifesto. We may disagree vehemently about it at times, but I cannot knock his talent and expertise. That is where we will offer to work with the Government on making those great strides.
It is utterly unacceptable in 21st-century Britain that any family should be put in danger because of where they live. Everyone, regardless of background, income or postcode, deserves to live in a decent, safe and secure home. The last Government’s consultation on Awaab’s law proposed sensible timelines. Landlords must investigate hazards within 14 days, act within a further seven, and complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. I welcome this Government’s commitment to implementing the law from October. That implementation must be timely, thorough and enforced, and they will have our support in doing so.
It is important to highlight that providers across the sector continue to invest in their existing stock to drive up standards. The previous Government oversaw the halving of the number of non-decent homes in the social housing sector since 2010, but the cost associated with these new requirements will likely require a rise in rents and service charges, which present their own associated challenges to an overburdened sector. As L&Q Group—not the housing association I worked for, but its rival—noted
“providers across the sector invested £37 billion in bringing homes up to a decent standard, at an average cost of £10,000 per home.”
But without additional Government support, this pace will slow, adding more pressure on renters. As the hon. Member for Bath outlined, it will also slow house building in this sector for the people who most need it, and it will harm the Government’s 1.5 million housing target.
On that topic, I must turn to the issue of winter fuel support, as the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley did. The Minister knows our views on winter fuel support, which I will not rehash, but it is a lifeline for many, and especially for our pensioners. I know I speak for many colleagues across the House when I say that I am deeply concerned about this Government’s decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance, which will impact 10 million pensioners nationwide. Age UK research shows that, in the north-west alone, 1.2 million pensioners are losing support and 300,000 of them are already living in or close to poverty. That is not just a policy failure but a moral failure that we all must bear. Our pensioners have worked in, contributed to and built this country, and we cannot and must not leave them out in the cold.
Energy bills are still going up, and there is the double whammy of removing the winter fuel payment and the energy inefficiency of housing, particularly for pensioners. The Government’s promises to freeze energy bills have not been met, which is not only harming those who are vulnerable but stopping them heating their homes when they need to.
I hope that the Minister takes my criticisms, suggestions and support in the spirit in which they are intended. The Government have a lot to reconsider: a settlement for pensioners that exacerbates their strained living conditions; a housing algorithm that abdicates responsibility for the issue to overburdened local authorities; and a faltering ambition to build a record number of homes.
We all want to see more houses built—I have repeatedly said that—and for those houses to be of high quality, but we also want to have a decent standard of homes across the private rented sector, too. There is much more work to be done, and the Government must rethink their approach to benefits for pensioners and vulnerable people while they still have a chance to correct their course, or it will be the general public who suffer the consequences of the Government’s mismanagement. I stand ready to offer support to the Minister in a genuine, open and constructive way, and I look forward to his response.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Western.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. As hon. Members will be aware, he has long championed housing issues on behalf of both renters and homeowners in his constituency and across the country. He made a powerful case in his opening remarks for action to tackle the blight of cold and damp homes.
I also thank all the other hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his kind remarks, which I very much appreciate. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick); the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and of course the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).
I will attempt to respond to all the points that have been raised in this debate, but I hope that colleagues who represent seats in Wales and Northern Ireland will understand that, as it is a devolved matter, I am not responsible for housing policy in their areas. However, I will ensure that comments are passed on to my colleagues in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office.
Everyone, regardless of whether they are a homeowner, a leaseholder or a tenant, has a basic right to a safe, secure, affordable and decent home. Yet, as we have heard from the many cases that have been shared this afternoon, and as I am acutely aware from my south-east London constituency, far too many families live in homes that are cold, damp and often mouldy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to argue that non-decent housing is not simply a housing issue, and the Government recognise that it is also a matter of public health and can exacerbate existing inequalities. It is imperative that we act decisively to improve the quality of housing in all tenures, and that is precisely what this Labour Government are doing. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised in this debate and to provide the House with more detail on the steps that we are taking.
I will begin by addressing the problem of cold and damp homes, which has been the focus of the debate. No tenant should be forced to live in a home that places their health and safety at risk. Although the proportion of homes with the highest energy efficiency ratings has increased over the last 10 years, an unacceptable number of English homes are not well maintained, and the number of homes suffering from damp has grown over the past five years.
A number of hon. Members mentioned several statistics, and I will give my own. In 2023, 5% of all homes in England had damp in them. The situation is worse for tenants, with 9% of privately rented homes and 7% of social homes experiencing damp. As hon. Members will know, one of the main causes of damp is excess cold, and large numbers of owner-occupiers and tenants are living in fuel poverty. Some 7.5% of owner-occupiers, 13.1% of social tenants and a staggering 21.5% of PRS tenants are fuel poor, with all the implications that that has for their physical and mental health and wellbeing.
It is stating the obvious, but it is worth restating that the social and economic benefits of bearing down on the problem are significant. It has been estimated that remedying dangerously hazardous cold in people’s homes would save the NHS over £11 million every year, and that fixing damp and mould would save a further £9.7 million. For those reasons, the Government are taking decisive action to drive up housing standards.
We are clear that when it comes to reducing the number of cold and damp homes, the existing regulatory system is not fit for purpose. Social rented homes must already meet the decent homes standard, but the part that refers to thermal comfort has not been updated since it was developed nearly a quarter of a century ago. Moreover, there is absolutely no obligation for private landlords even to meet that standard, meaning that, as I said, an astonishing 21% of privately rented homes are not decent. That is unacceptable, and it is why we will consult this year on an updated and reformed decent homes standard, which will apply to both the social and private rented sectors. That means that safe, secure housing will be the standard that people can expect in both social and privately rented properties, at no distinction between tenures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green rightly mentioned enforcement, which is an essential aspect of bringing a new decent homes standard into force. She will be aware—and I give credit to the previous Government for this—that the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 introduced proactive consumer regulations, overseen by the Regulator of Social Housing, which can hold all registered social landlords to account. The regulator has strong enforcement powers, so where there are serious failings it can take effective action, including issuing unlimited fines.
We are also taking immediate action to clamp down on damp, mould and other hazards. Both the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley mentioned the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020. As we have heard, Awaab died as a result of prolonged exposure to mould in his social rented home in Greater Manchester. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it shames us as a nation. I say that wherever I go; I think it utterly shames us, and it must never be repeated. That is why we have committed to implementing Awaab’s law, which was commendably legislated for by the previous Government. From October this year, social landlords will be required to address damp and mould within fixed timescales and carry out all emergency repairs as soon as possible, within no more than 24 hours.
Matthew Pennycook
I will just finish this point, because the sequencing is important for hon. Members to understand. We will then expand the law to include other health and safety hazards in 2026 and 2027.
Florence Eshalomi
As the shadow Minister highlighted, the Minister closes his eyes and sees housing; he cares passionately about this area. Additional enforcement areas will rightly help so many social housing tenants, but does the Minister agree that, because of the number of people caught in temporary housing, the Government need to look at regulation in social housing? We are seeing more and more people stuck in frankly unsuitable temporary accommodation for up to five or 10 years, and 74 children have died because of the conditions linked to their temporary accommodation.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the situation for lots of families in temporary accommodation is acute, and we are aware that there are real decency problems in that respect. The Renters’ Rights Bill provides for the extension of the decent homes standard to temporary accommodation, but we are obviously giving very serious consideration to how we improve standards for those in temporary accommodation and how we very rapidly move people out and into, in almost all cases, a decent, safe, secure and affordable social rented home. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for recognising that we have not done enough on that in the past, so we need to do more in the future.
Through the Renters’ Rights Bill, we will extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to private landlords. Beyond Awaab’s law, we are legislating to introduce electrical safety standards in social housing to bring them in line with requirements in the private rented sector. We are working with the housing ombudsman to ensure that tenants can seek redress when things go wrong, and we are committed to ensuring that social landlords have the right skills and qualifications to deliver housing services for their tenants.
As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, said, we are making tenancies in the private rented sector more secure by finally abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions. That will mean that tenants can have the confidence to complain to their landlords about poor conditions and use their right to take their landlord to court if necessary without fear of eviction.
It is all very well increasing the quality of social housing, but many people struggle to afford to heat their homes. That is not just a health hazard but a direct cause of damp and mould. An energy-efficient home is a warm and dry home, which is why we are already consulting on raising minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and have committed to do the same in the social rented sector in the coming months. We have committed an initial £3.4 billion to the warm homes plan funding over the next three years, including £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes. That will reduce annual bills considerably for tenants.
We also recognise the contribution that more energy-efficient buildings will make to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2050. Future standards, which will be introduced later this year, will set out how new homes and buildings can move away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and ensure they are fit for a net zero future. I look forward to updating the House on what those future standards entail in due course.
We know that most landlords, private and social, want to provide high-quality accommodation and work to fix damp and cold conditions as soon as they can, but we also know that our reforms will come at a cost to some. That is why our new warm homes local grant will help the private rented sector, and the warm homes social housing fund will support social housing providers and tenants.
David Chadwick
Does the Minister see a greater role for Welsh wool in insulating our homes? He may not be aware that many Welsh farmers actually lose money from shearing their sheep. Wool is a natural product that can be used to insulate homes. It is organic, and it would bring more money into the rural economy, unlike synthetic products.
Matthew Pennycook
It has been acknowledged that I have some knowledge of housing, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area about which I do not have particular knowledge, not least because the warm homes plan is the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure that Department will have heard all the comments that have been made about the warm homes plan, and I will ensure that the relevant Ministers reflect on them.
There is currently a zero rate of VAT until March 2027 on energy-saving measures such as insulation and low-carbon heating, making it cheaper for landlords to invest in their properties and reduce their energy usage. Other support is available to landlords to improve their properties. An eligibility tool is available on gov.uk to help people find the support available to them via the home upgrade grant and the Great British insulation scheme.
Of course, it is not just rented homes where we need to take action. We are also considering options to ensure a fair, proportionate and affordable approach to improving the energy performance of owner-occupied homes. The warm homes plan will help people find ways to save money on energy bills and will transform our ageing building stock into comfortable, low-carbon homes that are fit for the future. We will upgrade up to 5 million homes across the country by accelerating the installation of efficient new technologies such as heat pumps, solar batteries and insulation.
Before I conclude, I should mention how our efforts to improve standards and quality in homes of all tenures fit in with a wider housing strategy. In many cases, cold and damp homes are a symptom of the wider housing crisis that we inherited. That acute and entrenched crisis will not be solved by raising quality and standards; we need new supply. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England in this Parliament. We know that is a stretching target, but it is deliverable, in our view, and it is essential.
We have already announced changes to planning policy to support the delivery of affordable homes. We have also provided two immediate one-year cash injections totalling £800 million to the affordable homes programme to deliver an extra 7,800 homes. On 25 March, we injected a further £2 billion into the affordable homes programme from 2026-27 to build up to 18,000 new homes by the end of this Parliament. That funding is a down payment on future long-term investment and will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced in the spending review. In that programme, we want to put particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. These are new homes, built to high standards, that will be warm and dry.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always assiduous and gives good answers. He has put forward many good ideas to ensure that the issue of cold, damp and mouldy homes is addressed in the United Kingdom, especially in England. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and I would be keen to ensure that the Minister shares those ideas with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Wales.
Matthew Pennycook
We speak regularly with our counterparts in the devolved authorities, but I will make a special point of ensuring that the comments that have been made today are passed on to the relevant Ministers within those authorities and, as I said, with colleagues in the Scotland and Wales Offices.
Once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley on securing this important debate, and thank all those who have contributed to it. We all know the detrimental impact that non-decent housing has on the lives of our constituents, and that more must be done to drive up standards across housing tenures. I hope that this afternoon I have provided hon. Members with reassurance that the Government are working with determination to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of housing in this country.
Alex Sobel
Thank you, Mr Western; your chairing this afternoon has been excellent, and I hope to serve under you in many more debates. I thank all Members who have taken part: the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi); the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes); and most of all the Minister. I have contributed to a number of debates in which he has been exceedingly gracious and generous in what he has offered. It is very clear that he recognises the scope and scale of the issue that we face, and I am really pleased with the range of measures that he outlined. It is a league above where the previous Government were, but we need a driving focus on removing the barriers to providing warm and dry homes for those on the lowest incomes. That needs to be our main priority, because they are the ones who are still suffering the most.
Many Members mentioned the fact that many older people who may be just above the pension credit threshold are struggling to pay their fuel bills. We are only in May, and there are many months until the winter, but I hope that the Government, in addition to introducing measures that will result in lower energy bills in the future, might look again at that issue for the group who are just slightly above the threshold. Perhaps the Government could look again at the taper or threshold for winter fuel payments. As the Minister said, the worst tenure overall for cold and damp homes is the private rented sector. We need to go further and faster on action to ensure that landlords provide warm and dry homes, because everyone deserves a decent home.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of cold and damp homes.
Small Abattoirs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for small abattoirs.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate.
The abattoir industry is at crisis point. In 2023, just 60 small abattoirs—those with a throughput of less than 5,000 livestock units per year—were left in the UK. According to a 2022 Food Standards Agency report, small abattoirs are closing at the alarming rate of 10% per year, and within a decade they may well disappear altogether. To give an idea of the scale of the issue, in 2007 there were nearly 100 small abattoirs in the UK. The remaining small abattoirs face immense and multifaceted challenges to keep their facilities open for business. A 2021 National Craft Butchers study found that 59% of small abattoirs expected to shut down within five years unless they received Government support.
The loss of these essential rural businesses poses major problems for local food infrastructure, animal welfare, biodiversity and food security. A resilient, shorter and farmer-focused supply chain requires small abattoirs and butchers who have connections with local restaurants, pubs and retailers. More than ever, local livestock producers need a well-distributed network of small abattoirs that offer private kill services to farmers who wish to add value by marketing and selling their meat directly to consumers, or to farmers who breed rare or native breeds but are often unable to use larger processors. However, two thirds of those farmers have reported issues in accessing appropriate abattoir services. Meanwhile, a third of respondents to a user survey by the Abattoir Sector Group reported that their local abattoir had already closed. That is devastating for so many farmers.
Small abattoirs continue to deal with increased costs, such as rising energy costs and the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions, which threaten the viability of their businesses. However, they are also hampered by an expensive and punitive regulatory system that is not suited to addressing the nuances under which smaller processors have to operate.
Earlier this week, Hugh Broom, a local farmer and an old Harper Adams University friend of mine, invited me to visit Down Land Traditional Meats, a small abattoir in Sussex that processes under 5,000 livestock units per year. It is vital for the local food infrastructure in the area. Luke Smith, who runs the business, served over 2,000 customers in February, with people coming from as far as Essex to access his services. After the closure of Newman’s Abattoir in Farnborough earlier this year, farmers on the Isle of Wight are being forced to travel further afield to access abattoir facilities on the mainland, further increasing their costs, as transporting livestock off the island by ferry is very expensive. Many of them are now going to Down Land. Demand has grown so much that many farmers now face long waiting times to get their animals booked in for slaughter. The scenario is replicated across the country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. As the MP for the Scottish Borders, which is a vast area, I share her concerns. Many of my farmers and food producers face the challenges to which she has referred. I agree with her points about animal welfare and supporting the rural economy. Does she agree that local abattoirs help the environment by reducing the carbon footprint of food production?
Sarah Dyke
I absolutely agree. Reducing food miles is essential, along with carbon sequestration. Small farmers who supply local markets are doing sterling work by reducing food miles.
At Down Land abattoir, Luke is struggling to keep up with demand, for so many reasons. Recruitment is an issue and so is retention of staff, because there has been such a dramatic decline in people opting to work in skilled-labour roles in the food sector, including slaughtering and butchery. The restriction in the size of his facilities is also restricting his output. That is coupled with the fact that much of the facility’s ageing equipment was not built to withstand the throughput that he is now driving in his business. It is in desperate need of investment. While I was visiting earlier this week, one of the cold stores had a major fault and had to be closed down. That carcase hanging space could not be used, which had a massive knock-on effect on what was already a really busy day.
Most shockingly, Luke spoke passionately about the challenges that he faces every day because of the framework within which businesses like his must operate. Currently, the Food Standards Agency’s charging system is based on hours of onsite vet attendance. Abattoirs are charged a set hourly fee, irrespective of the animals slaughtered; discounts are currently available, depending on how many hours are used. Smaller sites, with a throughput of under 1,000 livestock units, are not required to have full-time OV attendance, so the majority of their hours will be covered by a 90% discount, but those that serve more than 1,000 livestock units will see their fees increased considerably.
In June 2025, the FSA will have to decide whether to launch a public consultation on the discount or accept the Treasury’s desire to remove it. The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers has warned that the estimated full costs will lead to the closure of 40% of the small abattoirs left in England and Wales. This comes on top of the FSA’s increase in inspection fees of approximately 20% from April this year. I ask the Minister to ensure the continuation of the small abattoir discount on inspection charges so that small abattoirs can remain financially viable.
Many small abattoirs feel penalised by the FSA, with constant inspections bringing up issues that were not found in their most recent audit. Some have received enforcement notices, which cost yet more money, to alter bits of equipment, add a bit of plastic roofing or add a bit of horsehair to the bottom of a door. All the while, the FSA provides no statutory right for abattoirs to appeal. Those in the industry have told me that it acts as judge, jury and executioner. The frustration is palpable.
The FSA’s charges are based on a time recording system that provides its inspectors with little incentive to deliver an efficient system. Many invoices are incorrect or fail to match up to the timesheets. The abattoir then has to re-read them and approach the FSA to get them changed. Then the invoices are reprocessed, and off they go again. It is hugely frustrating for small abattoirs, which simply do not have the number of staff necessary to make such changes or indeed to keep up with the FSA. They are being forced to comply with a system that is not suited to their business model.
Like many farmers and smallholders in Glastonbury and Somerton, I use my local small abattoir to process my lamb. Mine is Strap Orchard, in Wincanton, which is allowed to kill only between 6 am and 12 noon, and only when the onsite vet is present. Monday is its busiest day of the week. I am told that on one Monday, the OV turned up late, as they invariably do, and by 12 noon all but one lamb had been slaughtered. At exactly 12 noon, the OV instructed them to stop immediately, despite knowing that the only reason why the work was not finished was their own late arrival. The lamb was returned to the lairage area and had to be collected by the farmer, who then had to return it on the next slaughter day. The welfare impact was clearly significant, as was the inconvenience to everybody involved.
That is just one small example of the difficult environment in which small abattoirs must survive. I implore the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members across the House to visit a small abattoir and find out more about the difficulties that they face. Fractious working relationships and financial frustrations with the FSA are a significant reason why some small abattoirs have shut down or are considering closing, leaving the local food supply without a critical piece of infrastructure. The resulting impact is felt most heavily by local farmers. The Environment Agency is working with farmers to find solutions to the issues, so it is high time that the FSA started to do the same. There is no question but that food safety must come first. However, that must be achieved by working with small abattoirs, not by punishing them at every turn.
We need the FSA to build positive and mutually beneficial working relationships with small abattoirs to ensure food safety and food security, while enabling them to be as efficient and profitable as possible. The FSA does not seem concerned about the important role that small abattoirs play as a vital piece of local food infrastructure. It appears that it views them as a difficult stakeholder in comparison with larger, centralised processes, so there is a clear conflict of aims and interests.
I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can set a framework that values the contributions that small abattoirs make to local food systems. It has previously noted that it
“recognises the vital contribution a thriving abattoir network plays”
in achieving a resilient food supply chain, and it has said that it will work with abattoirs of all sizes to tackle the challenges that they face. Can the Minister explain where small abattoirs sit in DEFRA’s future farming road map? I urge him to set out how he will support small abattoirs as they deal with the difficult challenges that they face. Small abattoirs should be recognised as critical pieces of livestock infrastructure that provide a diverse range of services.
I recently spoke to Gavin Keen of the multi-award-winning Blackmore Vale butchery, which is based in Henstridge in Glastonbury and Somerton. Gavin has carried out a study of abattoirs in the local area. He tells me that there are just six abattoirs that provide private kill services for farmers who are semi-local to the constituency, and that the closure of any of them would present a major logistical challenge to the local food infrastructure. Concerningly, nearly all these abattoirs, like Down Land in Sussex, are operating at or close to capacity, leaving farmers with long waiting lists to get their livestock booked in.
It is critical that the UK has a network of abattoirs in areas of production offering services and processing, allowing value to return to the farm and allowing farmers to retail their own meat, because that can add a significant mark-up to their produce. The closure of abattoirs that offer private kill can and will hit farm revenues hard and limit farmers’ ability to diversify their income. The Liberal Democrats are clear that this network of small abattoirs is an important asset for our rural communities. We have called for a £1 billion package to be added to the farming budget to support the agricultural sector. The Liberal Democrats also passed a motion at our spring conference this year that affirms our commitment to upholding the high animal welfare standards in British farming, including through support for small abattoirs.
Private kill services offered by small abattoirs allow farmers to add value to their produce by enabling them to retail the meat themselves. A survey by the Royal Countryside Fund found that farmers using private kill services in England were able to add significant value— £56 for an individual sheep and up to £3,775 for cattle.
According to the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, the continued existence of small abattoirs is vital for rare and native breed farmers. Breeding rare and native breeds provides significant public good—from increased biodiversity to high-welfare, low-input meat production. However, if smaller abattoirs offering private kill services close, many of those farmers will need to change their business practices, given that 90% of native breed producers rely on those services. Native breeds mature more slowly than commercial ones, and many large abattoirs will not take cattle over 30 months old, while horned cattle and large pigs are regularly banned from large abattoirs. If we want to support agro-ecological farming, we must ensure there is diversity within our livestock.
It is not just about retaining important historical and cultural breeds, but recognising the important role that biodiversity plays in the future of farming. Given the precarious financial position of farmers across the country, the loss of private kill options could be devastating. In fact, a British Farming Union members’ survey from March last year found that direct sales are such a critical component of some farming businesses that without them, their business would cease to exist.
Let us be under no illusions. Farmers are still reeling from the hammer blows that were the family farm tax and increased employers’ national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget. Then, most recently, came the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme, leaving some farmers’ business plans utterly devastated. Farmers have been at the receiving end of some terrible decisions, many of them made by the previous Conservative Government. Following the botched transition from basic payments, farmers have just about managed to struggle on.
The last Conservative Government proved themselves inept at supporting British agriculture, while the current Labour Government are proving that they just do not understand the industry. The Liberal Democrats were disappointed to see the Government fail to replace the smaller abattoir fund, which closed in September 2024. I believe if this Government are serious about supporting British agriculture, a great opportunity presents itself today to step up and recognise the crucial role that small abattoirs play in the food supply chain.
I would like to touch on the workforce planning issues that the small abattoir sector faces, the impact of which will only increase over the coming years. Working in a small abattoir is very different from working in a larger processor; in a small facility, employees are expected to carry out a multitude of different jobs, as opposed to a larger abattoir, where employees work in a line system, generally specialising in performing just one task. The lack of skilled labour in the meat sector has dire implications for food security, and makes it harder to reach our environmental and sustainability goals. One in four food and drink workers are due to retire within the next year, while the average age of a small abattoir operator is between 60 and 70 years old. In line with Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, we must invest in training and education for the food industry.
The Liberal Democrats are clear: we need to invest in workforce planning to ensure that we have enough vets, abattoir workers, slaughtermen and farm workers to meet the UK’s needs. That is a crucial element of UK food security. The Government’s own review recommends implementing a comprehensive strategy to improve awareness of opportunities in the food supply chain. Currently, the system does not make it easy for abattoirs to take on apprentices, nor is it appealing for those that seek to undertake training. Abattoir apprenticeships only go up to level 2, and apprentices receive a meagre £6,000 a year, which is nowhere near sufficient to cover training, travel and accommodation. That is hardly an incentive to enter the trade.
I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the steps his Department is taking to improve workforce planning in this sector. We must focus on the long-term viability of these crucial elements of the livestock infrastructure.
Does the Minister agree that the UK-wide local network of abattoirs is vital for food security, animal welfare and the profitability of our farmers? Could he also confirm that in order to sustain and grow the network of abattoirs, he will ensure that the Government’s existing small abattoir working group will have a proactive focus on delivery, working with both local and national Governments? If so, will he commit to meet regularly with the co-chairs of the industry and Government working group to give this crucial issue the attention it so clearly deserves?
To conclude, it is clear that small abattoirs are central to our local food supply chain, and there will be a dire impact if we lose them. We need DEFRA to step up and frame its importance in local food infrastructure. We need long-term workforce planning, and a system that meets the needs of livestock producers and proactively works with stakeholders throughout the supply chain. If not, farming businesses and the supply chain will suffer.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Over the past 50 years, abattoirs have rapidly vanished. More than 90% of them have closed. Across the country, family farms that once relied on local slaughterhouses now face round trips of over 100 miles just to kill a handful of animals to provide the meat for our tables. That drives up costs and, ironically, increases the stress on livestock that our welfare laws seek to mitigate.
Alongside Labour’s family farm tax, the closure of the sustainable farming incentive and the end of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, this additional burden is pushing many of our farmers to the financial and mental brink. Small abattoirs are essential to our regional supply chain. They enable the sale of high-welfare local meat. They underpin farmers’ ability to add value and differentiate themselves in the market. They are also vital to preserving native rare breeds, small-scale mixed farming and the rural way of life that defines my constituency, Weald of Kent.
Let us consider for a moment what a small farmer in the Weald—someone rearing Romney sheep, say—actually has to do simply to sell meat from the animals they breed and raise. First, they must register their land with the Rural Payments Agency for a county parish holding number, and then register their animals with the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every animal must be marked with official identification tags, and all livestock movements must be recorded and reported using approved forms. If animals are moved for sale or slaughter, or even between farms, it triggers further paperwork. Transporting them over 65 km, as many farms must as more abattoirs close, is another special authorisation and haulier certification.
If the animal is to be slaughtered for sale, the rules multiply. The farmer must log all medicine use and vaccines as per the Veterinary Medicines Directorate standards, complete food chain information forms for the Food Standards Agency, and potentially have the animal inspected in advance by an authorised vet. Slaughter itself can be carried out only by someone holding a certificate of competence under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, and the carcase must then be health-marked after inspection by an FSA official vet, for which the processor is charged by the hour. Even after all that, offal, hides and other by-products are regulated separately under animal by-product rules, often with disposal costs that exceed their market value.
That is the regulatory burden on a small-scale producer: multiple agencies, overlapping rules and no distinction between a local farm shop and a multinational meat processor. This is not proportionate regulation; it is bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. It is not only putting small farmers and small abattoirs out of business, but putting our rural culture and heritage at risk of extinction. Small abattoirs do not need favours; they need fairness. Given all the pain that the Government have inflicted upon the agricultural community, it is time our farmers were finally given a chance to succeed. I beg the Minister to ease these regulations before the final small abattoirs close and it is too late.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this very important debate. We have heard about the situation for abattoirs in general, and in Wales it is just as stark. The number of operational red meat abattoirs in Wales has dropped from some 60 in 1990 to just 17 last year.
As other Members have eloquently outlined, the importance of small abattoirs to our rural economies cannot be overstated. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton underlined how important they are as a cog in a vital supply chain for the rural economy. We should not forget that if we were to lose more of our small abattoirs, many of which face extinction, we would also see the demise of the surrounding agricultural industry. In areas such as Ceredigion Preseli, in which agriculture is a key pillar of the local economy, there would be an economic hit for the wider population, so it is urgent that we maintain the network of small abattoirs and hopefully expand it through Government support.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned the disproportionate regulatory burdens that small abattoirs face. That complaint and that experience is echoed by some constituents of mine who run a very small abattoir near Tregaron, Cig Oen Caron. They provide an invaluable service to local famers. They not only provide private kill services of a kind that larger operators do not offer, which allow them to diversify their income and build their business, but ensure high animal welfare standards and cater to a variety of farming models. It has already been said that larger operators seldom offer multi-species or rare breed services. Small abattoirs fill that gap in the market. If we were to lose small abattoirs, a number of business models that are so important in all parts of the United Kingdom, including my own, will become unviable.
It is also important to note that if we lose more small abattoirs, the distance that farmers must travel to take their animals to slaughter will increase. Average journey times are already unacceptable, given the added stress, the animal welfare concerns and the carbon footprint.
In Wales, we need to ensure that the existing very small network of proud and, in many cases, family-run small abattoirs is supported. The Welsh Government have responsibility for infrastructure development, so I will not ask the Minister to help us in that regard, but the UK Government can help small abattoirs in Wales with the cost of regulation and the inspection regime undertaken by the Food Standards Agency. The owners of Cig Oen Caron have approached me in recent years to explain the pressure that that added cost places on their business. More recently, there has been an 18% increase to their costs, so the importance of retaining the small abattoir discount is pressing. I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister can offer, not only that the discount will be retained but that the Government will consider with an open mind expanding it for the smallest abattoirs in recognition of the fact that the general costs are increasing.
If we are to maintain a diverse, geographically sparse and accessible network of small abattoirs in this country, the Government need to support it. If they are serious about treating small abattoirs as a key piece of infrastructure—let us not forget that they are critical for our farming businesses and rural economies—Government support through grants to improve infrastructure and with regulatory burdens is well overdue. I, for one, would welcome it if the Government made moves in that direction.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this important debate. Several farmers in my constituency have contacted me to raise concerns about the threat to small-scale abattoirs, to express how vital they are to their business and to ask me to take part in this debate to share the challenges they face as a result of the disappearance of small-scale abattoirs and their fears for their future. I thank the Brighton and Hove food partnership and the Wealden food partnership for their local research on this matter.
Small-scale farms go hand in hand with small-scale abattoirs, which offer the flexibility that small farms need to rear a diverse range of breeds. In Sussex, they support conservation efforts to restore a rare and highly diverse habitat. We are incredibly fortunate in East Sussex to have one of the rarest habitats in the UK—chalk grasslands, which have formed over thousands of years and have created the conditions for a rich, biodiverse ecosystem of rare plants and animals. The South Downs national park authority highlights that we can find up to 40 different species within 1 square metre. Since world war two, however, the UK has seen an 80% reduction in these chalk grasslands, making their conservation an important local issue, as the last remaining areas are under threat from spreading scrub, including nettles, hawthorns and brambles.
Local farmers can support these crucial and rare grasslands through a process known as conservation grazing, which is considered an important tool in local efforts. Conservation grazing is the practice of using primarily native breeds of grass-grazing livestock to selectively graze out problem or invasive species, most often without the need for supplementary feeding. That gives our chalk grasslands the opportunity to start growing, instead of continuing to shrink.
The native breed animals needed to do that, however, are typically smaller and less homogenised than the products we are used to seeing in supermarkets. Most large-scale abattoirs sell directly only to wholesalers and supermarkets, which creates a number of problems. Supermarkets have very clear specifications of what they consider to be an acceptable cut of meat. Often, the native breed animals that farmers would use in conservation grazing will not be accepted by supermarkets, as they produce cuts that are too small or too variable, meaning that large-scale abattoirs will not accept those livestock in the first place. Farmers are then restricted in the breeds they can rear. Large abattoirs usually do not allow farmers to reclaim their meat to sell locally. If farmers are able to sell their own meat, they are also often able to make a small premium, which tells the story of their farm and recognises the slow and sustainable pace at which the animals were grown.
That is where small-scale abattoirs such as Down Land Traditional Meats come in. The abattoir is in Henfield, West Sussex, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who I know has been doing his best to support it. It provides an essential service to local farmers in my constituency and across Sussex. The abattoir is willing to accept those native livestock species and allow farmers to get their meat back.
Sadly, like many small-scale abattoirs, Down Land Traditional Meats faces potential closure due to a range of different factors. Some are specific to its circumstances, but there are pressures outside its immediate control. One pressure, as has been mentioned by other Members, is an uplift in the FSA hourly rates for official vets and meat hygiene inspectors visiting meat premises for the 2025-26 financial year, which on average is close to 20%. It is true that the very smallest abattoirs have discounts on those rates, which have remained, but for those abattoirs in the middle bands, there has been a decrease in the discounts from 26% to 17% and from 14% to 6% respectively. That puts immense financial pressure on already tight margins.
Without small-scale abattoirs, local farmers and businesses will have to start reconsidering practices such as conservation grazing or start looking further afield into other parts of England, but that comes with its own consequences. Whatever their size and make-up, there are good reasons to have a good spread of abattoirs across the country so that all farmers are reasonably close to one. In that regard, the south of England already has a disadvantage compared with the rest of the country, as there are so few abattoirs of any kind—only Scotland has fewer per square mile.
Using more distant abattoirs would increase the transit time for livestock. That is a great concern to farmers in my constituency, as their livestock would have to be placed in bigger lorries and travel longer distances. Long journeys increase stress in animals as they are exposed to crowded conditions, noisy vehicles, vibrations, a lack of food and water or space to rest, and fluctuating temperatures. On an economic point for farmers, the cost of increased transportation will further cut into their tight margins, making an already costly business even more expensive and, perhaps for some, unviable.
The last Government recognised the importance of small abattoirs and the role they play in providing a route for farmers to rear rare and native breeds, which is why they launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to boost the sustainability and efficiency of red meat and poultry abattoirs across England. The fund awarded capital grants from £2,000 up to a maximum of £60,000 to help smaller abattoirs across England improve productivity, enhance animal health and welfare, add value to primary products and encourage innovation and investment in new technologies.
Six months after the launch, recognising further pressures, the last Government increased the maximum grant value to £70,000. Meanwhile, this Labour Government have instead introduced devastating changes to inheritance tax laws through their cruel family farm tax, which will mean that many small farms will have to sell land to larger so-called super farms, which may not have the same sense of guardianship over the land as our smaller local farmers.
I finish with a number of questions for the Minister. First, given the increased costs, what assessments have the Government made of reforming the professions that can conduct the necessary welfare checks? Are they confident that only a vet can fulfil all the duties currently fulfilled by vets at that increased cost? Secondly, what plans are there for further direct funding support for small abattoirs? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the fee increase? Can they commit to freezing fees for next year?
I welcome this opportunity to raise those concerns on behalf of farmers in my constituency, and I look forward to the Minister providing the concrete plans and reassurances that my local farmers seek.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this important debate and making such a compelling case for the importance of small abattoirs to the rural economy.
Support for small abattoirs is vital not just in my constituency but in rural communities throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The challenges that these facilities face are symptomatic of broader issues in our food infrastructure, rural economies and national food strategy. The Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our commitment to this cause by passing a motion at our 2025 spring conference that recognised the essential role that small abattoirs play in maintaining high animal welfare standards—standards that British and Welsh farmers are rightly proud of and which consumers increasingly expect.
But we cannot ignore the facts. The number of abattoirs in the UK has plummeted over the last 30 years. Between 2018 and 2022 alone, the number of smaller red meat abattoirs fell by 25% and the number of small poultry abattoirs fell by an alarming 40%. Those closures are being driven by rising costs and mounting regulatory burdens—pressures that smaller facilities are ill equipped to absorb. The decline comes at a tremendous cost to animal welfare, rural economies, local food resilience and consumer choice.
I will begin with animal welfare, a topic that has been raised several times today. Small abattoirs dramatically reduce food miles by offering local slaughter options. That is not a minor detail, as it means that animals spend less time in transit, endure less stress and arrive at slaughter in better condition. Slaughtering animals as close as possible to where they are reared is a principle that should be central to any ethical food infrastructure.
There is also a very strong economic case. Small abattoirs support rural economies by providing jobs and anchoring local supply chains. They keep value within communities and help producers to secure higher value through direct-to-consumer sales. Demand is rising for high-quality Welsh meat. Several farmers in my constituency are doing a roaring trade after setting up their own meat box businesses—I will be picking up mine from Geraint this weekend. The Government should encourage this welcome trend because it helps to address the power imbalance in our food system. Large abattoirs are often contractually tied to supermarkets and cannot return small quantities to individual producers.
In my constituency, W. J. George Butchers in Talgarth exemplifies the value added by independent abattoirs. The family-owned business has been serving our local community for more than 135 years. Its model is rooted in local relationships. Animals are selected directly from trusted farms, processed on-site and sold with full traceability. It is precisely that level of quality, integrity and traceability that consumers want and small abattoirs can deliver.
Beyond the local economy, there are national implications. In recent weeks, we have seen large supply chains, such as those used by Marks & Spencer and the Co-op, hacked and disrupted, which illustrates the fragility of overcentralised systems dominated by the big corporations. Small abattoirs offer resilience in the supply chain. They distribute risk, reduce dependence on long- haul logistics and provide extra capacity in our food infrastructure. That is good not only for business but for national food security.
The need for support is clear, but recent Government action has fallen short. The previous Conservative Government omitted small abattoirs entirely from their food strategy, and this new Labour Government, despite Labour’s manifesto commitment to uphold the highest animal welfare standards, have yet to replace the smaller abattoir fund, which was closed in September 2024.
In Wales, the situation is even worse. The Welsh Labour Government have not provided support for small abattoirs for many years. To compound matters, the Food Standards Agency imposed a 20% increase on meat inspection fees in April 2025. That is a crushing burden on already struggling small operators.
If we are serious about encouraging ethical and sustainable farming, we must stop penalising the very facilities that make it possible. I urge the Government to consider authorising mobile slaughterhouses, which could play a key role in reaching isolated areas and reducing infrastructure costs. I hope that the Minister might offer an update on the progress of such plans with the Food Standards Agency in his response.
There is also scope for smarter regulation. With the help of recent technological advances in monitoring and traceability, it may be time to explore a lighter-touch regulatory framework for small abattoirs—one that maintains safety and quality but reduces compliance costs that disproportionately affect smaller facilities.
Finally, we must improve food labelling. Customers want transparency. Now more than ever, they want to know how and where an animal was raised. That information helps to empower consumers and create a more informed, value-driven market.
In conclusion, small abattoirs are community assets. They support high animal welfare, reduce food miles, sustain rural economies, provide producers with added value and increase our food system’s resilience. The Liberal Democrats will continue to champion their cause. I join my honourable colleagues in calling on the Government to replace the smaller abattoir fund, to consult meaningfully with the sector and to back the infrastructure and regulatory reform needed to keep these vital operations thriving. In doing so, we would uphold not just animal welfare but the health and sustainability of our entire food system.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this incredibly important debate. As has been indicated in all the contributions, we realise that small abattoirs are a vital part of our food supply chain and, therefore, of our national food security.
The benefits of encouraging a diverse range of abattoirs of all sizes are incredibly important not only for food supply but for supporting the rural economy. Farming businesses rely on them. If they are not there, opportunities for our farmers, our rural economy and our consumers are significantly reduced.
Small abattoirs bring greater market competition, helping our farmers to secure the best price for their produce. They often provide specialist services, such as slaughter for horned cattle or outdoor pigs, which is not always offered by larger establishments, as we have heard. We do not always hear in this House about how the opportunities provided by small abattoirs are incredibly important for many in our farming community. Private kill services, which farmers looking to diversify increasingly rely on, are also a speciality of our smaller abattoirs.
With regard to animal welfare, smaller abattoirs are well suited to ensuring that each animal receives humane treatment. Reduced travel distances mean that animals arrive less stressed than they would after a longer journey. Those shorter travel distances also cut down on haulage costs and emissions in our meat sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) indicated in his intervention.
In rural communities across the country, small abattoirs ensure that more business is done locally by providing jobs and a local supply of produce for businesses further down the supply chain. However, we have unfortunately seen a decline in small and medium-sized abattoirs across the country, with areas such as northern Scotland, northern England and the south-east in particular experiencing a short supply of small abattoirs. A survey of farm businesses recently showed that 51% of respondents had to find new abattoirs after the closure of their original provider. Between 2018 and 2022, smaller red meat abattoirs declined by around 25% and smaller poultry abattoirs declined by around 40%.
A survey undertaken by National Craft Butchers indicated that 59% of abattoirs processing less than 1,000 livestock units a year would close within two to five years without any Government intervention. In 2023, that analysis was unfortunately on track. The previous Government decided to act on that by introducing the smaller abattoir fund. However, the costs to our smaller abattoirs have significantly increased. As has been mentioned, energy costs are often much higher for smaller abattoirs. The employer national insurance increase, the minimum wage increase and the challenges around skills are increasing those challenges.
The previous Government understood the problem and delivered the £4 million smaller abattoir fund, with 42% of eligible businesses applying. It delivered critical investment into the sector, making it more productive and improving produce quality and animal welfare standards. I urge the Government to continue rolling out that fund, which provided funds from £4,000 to up to £60,000. That was increased from an intervention rate of 40% to 50%, with the upper limit increasing to £75,000 to cover off some of the challenges.
Specific issues were picked up by colleagues in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) mentioned the challenges in the south-east. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) had specific challenges associated with their abattoir in Henfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs met the chief executive of Horsham district council and managed to secure a £300,000 grant to help keep the abattoir open. That illustrates the nature of the challenge. The changes to employer’s national insurance have been exacerbated by the additional costs associated with energy and running a small abattoir, so sometimes the Government need to intervene and assist.
We also need to get to a position of fairness throughout the whole of the supply chain, as was rightly suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). Farmers want fairness, not favours. We must get to a position where there is fairness in the supply chain. Government intervention sometimes helps the small abattoirs that provide a much better level of service to our rural economy, rather than farmers having to rely on larger abattoirs. Sometimes intervention helps, so I reiterate the calls on the Government to roll out the smaller abattoir fund again.
We also delivered the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export of live animals for slaughter. Not only did that end an often inhumane practice, but it provided further reassurance for the sector. The first thing that the Government could do is unequivocally recognise the importance of smaller abattoirs, primarily focusing on the supply chain. The Government should ensure that the supply chain—and abattoirs—are encompassed within their food strategy. Part of the review should include looking closely not only at a second round of the smaller abattoir fund, but at whether there are circumstances in which smaller abattoirs do not need the additional costs of energy.
What plans does the Minister have for regulatory reform in the abattoir sector? At a time when the Government are advocating for greater alignment with Europe, does he recognise that many of the EU directives still in force in this country did great damage to our smaller abattoirs? There is also growing concern about the financial burden placed on our smaller abattoirs by the Food Standards Agency, to which Members have referred. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that smaller abattoirs are not disproportionately affected by the rise in inspection costs? More broadly, what is he doing to ensure that the FSA delivers value for money?
The debate has rightly acknowledged the FSA’s rollout of increased charges. The uplift from March 2025, which impacts our smaller abattoirs, will have a direct impact in this financial year and the next. The Opposition agree with the National Farmers Union that the further pressure on the small and medium-sized abattoirs that are struggling with additional costs and regulatory burdens has been exacerbated by the implications of the FSA’s additional charging.
Furthermore, we want clarity from the Government about what they intend to do on the 5% rule, which would significantly reduce the regulatory burden for the smallest abattoirs. As we know, if such a rule was in place it would enable smaller abattoirs to slaughter up to 5% of the total national throughput without triggering a full veterinary presence and therefore without the additional costs associated with their going above 1,000 units and having veterinary officers present. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s intentions on the 5% rule?
The Government must also consider the benefits to small abattoirs of future food labelling reviews. Will the Minister tell us the Government’s intentions? Better consumer awareness through food labelling would help smaller abattoirs to sell their produce as more humane, more local and better placed for the consumer. I would appreciate it if he outlined the Government’s intentions in that regard.
To summarise, our rural economy has faced additional pressures not just through the family farm tax and the removal of the SFI but through the dramatic reduction in de-linked payments to £7,200. It is being further hit by the dramatic reduction in small abattoirs and consequently the reduced ability to slaughter produce at a local facility. I call on the Government not only to roll out additional incentives nationally through the smaller abattoir fund but to take on board the many contributions that have been made in the debate, so they can ensure that our farmers and our rural economy continue to thrive.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate, and for delivering a thorough and thoughtful introduction to a subject that matters deeply to all those who have spoken today and indeed to many of us across the House. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions to the debate from a range of Members. I thank the UK meat processing industry for all it does to provide us with products that meet high human health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and to support our domestic food supply chains and strong export market. In 2024, the sector was worth some £12 billion.
Today, we are obviously concentrating on the small abattoir sector. Over 93% of meat is slaughtered in larger slaughterhouses but, as has been outlined, the small abattoir sector is still very important, particularly in dealing with rare breeds and in achieving the premium outcomes that I think we all want to support. Everyone who has spoken has made a strong case for the importance of small abattoirs, because they contribute to economic growth in rural communities, provide skilled employment opportunities and offer an outlet to market for those who farm rare and native breeds. As has been said, they promote animal welfare by enabling shorter journey times to slaughter.
We are all aware that the situation for small abattoirs has been an issue for a number of years. Of course, over the last few years a number of smaller abattoirs have closed; some of them have been mentioned in this debate. However, it is also worth pointing out that a number of small abattoirs work very effectively, and have shown remarkable adaptability and resilience. We saw that during the covid-19 pandemic and during disease outbreaks, and we have all heard and understand the crucial role that they play in the agricultural community. When one looks at the map to see where they are, one sees that they are still quite spread out, although quite clearly there are areas of the country that are particularly challenged.
Several Members mentioned the Food Standards Agency’s ongoing evaluation of the discount scheme for meat inspection charges. Obviously, some elements are for the FSA to consider, but as a Minister I can also have a view. Although it is necessary to review such schemes periodically, I absolutely recognise the importance of the discount scheme to smaller abattoirs and the contribution that the industry can make to the evaluation process. That important point was raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), who has since had to go to the main Chamber, and by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton.
After the call for evidence in autumn last year, the FSA has hosted several engagement sessions to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to share their views on discounts, so there is an ongoing discussion about discounts and how they should be structured in the future. My understanding from those discussions is that there was positive engagement, and that the information that was gathered from those sessions will inform future proposals.
I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to engage with the sector on those wider priorities, concerns and opportunities, and we will use some of the well-established forums, some of which were mentioned earlier—the small abattoir working group and the small abattoirs task and finish group. I am very grateful to the members of these groups; they provide a valuable opportunity for Government to collaborate with stakeholders on finding, where possible, practical solutions to the priority challenges they have identified, and to support our shared ambition for future resilience and growth. I checked earlier, and they have had meetings recently, in March and January, and I will look closely at the suggestions that they make.
One of the areas in which we have been working closely with the industry, and the Food Standards Agency, is in looking at how we can reduce regulatory and administrative burdens within the framework within which the wider abattoir sector operates. We have to get the right balance because, clearly, we need to make sure that the proper standards are maintained, but also that the regulation is appropriate and proportionate. I absolutely hear the point that has been made that it often seems that there is a disproportionate impact on the smaller abattoirs, as it can be hard for them to meet because of their size.
Actions have been taken already, and will continue to be taken, including the introduction of the reduced administration initiative, which aims to remove certain daily administrative tasks for food business operators, and the FSA escalation process, which is designed to help abattoirs quickly raise and resolve operational issues. I can pledge that we will continue to work collaboratively with the industry, and focus on evaluating the feasibility of other potential flexibilities, including relaxing post-mortem checks within smaller abattoirs.
I am also aware of the impact that recent disease outbreaks have had on the sector. The spread of diseases means that it is sometimes necessary to implement restriction zones, and abattoirs must be designated to receive animals for slaughter from within those restriction zones. Again, I appreciate and understand the difficulties that that can place on both farmers and processors. We have made this process as simple as possible by working closely with both the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland.
Before turning to some of the other actions that the Government are taking, I want to take the opportunity to use this debate to pose a few questions for us all to consider, some of which have already been raised. How can we raise awareness about the vital role that smaller abattoirs play in maintaining the UK’s food supply, and how can we work with local butcheries and farm shops in promoting the added value to primary products, which we have heard about from others? We should also look at the rural employment opportunities that are provided for skilled workers while continuing to innovate and use new technology to drive efficiencies and productivity. I genuinely believe that this is a sector that has a good story to tell.
John Lamont
The Minister is absolutely right to highlight the importance of supporting local food production and ensuring that consumers here in the UK buy local. I just wonder how that stacks up with what President Trump has just said, which is that this new UK-US trade deal
“includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all the products produced by our great farmers.”
How does that fit in with encouraging people to buy British products?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the opportunity to shoehorn a wider issue into the debate this afternoon. I would encourage him to look more closely at the details as presented by the UK Government, which are a very reliable source of information.
Daniel Zeichner
I could not possibly comment. I will return to the issue of small abattoirs, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are absolutely committed to making sure that we uphold the very high standards that we have in this country, and that is what we have achieved through the agreement.
Returning to small abattoirs, we are working to modernise statutory livestock traceability services, which should make a big difference over the next two to three years and make it less burdensome for all actors in the supply chain to report the movement of animals into their premises. As we advance those opportunities, we have been working with the industry to identify ways of helping to alleviate the pressures that smaller abattoirs face with the disposal of animal by-products and with labour supply—again, points that were raised in the opening speeches. We will continue to work closely with the industry to explore potential solutions.
To further support economic growth, we remain committed to harnessing the purchasing power of the procurement supply chain to set the tone for delivering our wider ambitions on sustainability, animal welfare and health. We have an ambition to supply half of all food into the public sector from local producers or those certified to higher environmental standards, in line with our World Trade Organisation and domestic procurement obligations.
For the first time, as the Secretary of State announced at the Oxford farming conference in January, the Government will review the food currently bought by the public sector and where it is bought from. That work will be a significant first step to inform future changes to public sector food procurement policies, helping to create an equal playing field for British producers to bid into the £5 billion spent each year on public sector catering contracts.
As the Secretary of State also announced, we are committed to streamlining planning processes for agricultural infrastructure through the Government’s planned consultation on the national planning policy framework. That will give us the opportunity to consult on reforms to expedite the construction of essential farm infrastructure, such as buildings, barns and other facilities necessary for boosting food production, while also improving environmental sustainability.
As the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I am absolutely committed to helping smaller abattoirs to succeed and to take advantage of the opportunities available to them by continuing to support the meat industry where and when I can. To support employment in the meat processing sector—a point raised by several Members—the Government are taking firm action to address the challenges we have identified through our engagement with that sector.
We are reforming the apprenticeships offer into a new growth and skills offer, which will provide greater flexibility to employers and learners and will align with the industrial strategy. That will include shorter-duration apprenticeships and new foundation apprenticeships for young people in targeted, growing sectors. That will help more people to learn high quality skills at work and will fuel innovation in businesses across the country. The Government will set out our plans for further steps and detailed information on the growth and skills offer in due course, based on the findings of Skills England’s engagement over the autumn with key partners, including employers and training providers.
As part of our commitment to strengthening vital sectors across the agricultural and food industries, we have also announced measures to provide stability to farmers and workers in the UK’s poultry sector. In February, the Government announced a five-year extension to the seasonal worker visa until the end of 2030, ensuring a reliable pipeline of workers for farms. As in previous years, 2,000 visas have been allocated specifically for seasonal poultry workers, and annual quota reviews will balance farm support with reducing reliance on seasonal migrant labour, helping farms to grow with stability and confidence.
I turn to funding. Despite the ongoing financial challenges posed by a very tight public purse, we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over two years, with the largest ever investment directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery. Capital investment will not solve every problem, but we do plan to simplify and rationalise grant funding to ensure that grants deliver the best benefit for food security and nature. We are currently working to agree our capital settlement as part of the spending review and, once it is agreed, we will consider how best to use capital to achieve outcomes.
In closing, I thank the meat processing sector and smaller abattoirs specifically for their continued commitment to supplying the nation with healthy and wholesome food. The Government stand with them, and I look forward to continuing to work with the sector to build a stronger and more secure future for British agriculture and food production.
Sarah Dyke
I thank Members for their contributions, which are much appreciated. I heard very clearly their passion for supporting farmers in their areas. They made it abundantly clear that small and local abattoirs form a crucial part of local food infrastructure, but they need support from the Government. Those abattoirs are severely at risk, so it falls on DEFRA to define where they sit in plans for the future of farming and to set out how the Government will ensure that we have a local network of abattoirs across the country.
I thank the Minister for his words and for the nuggets of good news. I hope that we will soon have further clarity on that funding and on what the landscape will look like, because we know that agriculture will face only more shocks. We have to tackle them now to ensure that farming in the future is resilient, with the infrastructure to support farmers so that they can secure their businesses.
I hope that the Minister sees the opportunity to work with the small abattoir sector to safeguard its future and to ensure that local food infrastructure is as resilient as possible. Rural communities across the country—including farmers, retailers, butchers, pubs, restaurants and hotels—rely on small abattoirs, so we must make sure that they are there to serve customers and to feed the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for small abattoirs.
Better Care for Veterans: National Training and Education Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
As the nation marks the 80th anniversary of VE Day, we are announcing a new national training and education plan to transform healthcare for the armed forces community across England.
The Government are proud of the courage and dedication of our armed forces. It is our duty to ensure that those who have been injured or are unwell, whether physically or mentally, receive the very best possible care. However, the NHS is not currently set up to provide the best possible services to the armed forces community. Too many veterans still struggle to navigate civilian healthcare systems and may not self-identify as veterans to NHS staff, putting them at risk of missing out on the additional support and bespoke services that are already available. That is why we are rolling out the national training and education plan—to help guarantee that armed forces veterans and their families benefit from the improved and targeted healthcare that they deserve. The plan will train and educate NHS staff across the country to meet the unique health needs of veterans, serving personnel and their families.
NHS staff across England will receive dedicated training to help them identify and support patients with military backgrounds. GPs, NHS doctors, nurses and managers will work with regional trainers to make sure they embed this support into their services. The three-year training programme, backed by £1.8 million, will be rolled out across England from October 2025.
This announcement sits within wider Government commitments to veterans, including putting the armed forces covenant fully into law, and the newly announced Operation Valour, a £50 million boost in funding to ensure that veterans across the UK have easier access to essential care and support. The national training and education plan will ensure that the NHS is set up to fulfil the armed forces covenant, with the appropriate training and education required to develop a skilled, educated and inclusive NHS primary, community and secondary care workforce, to meet the evolving needs of the armed forces community within the NHS in England. This new training is part of our plan for change to fix the NHS and make sure it works for everyone, including those who have risked everything to serve our country.
[HCWS624]
Local Government Best Value
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I have previously updated this House that this Government are committed to reset the relationship between local and regional government, and to establish partnerships built on mutual respect, genuine collaboration and meaningful engagement. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent and this Government are taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government and to support the sector to build to strength. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in partnership to support five councils to recover and reform: Spelthorne borough council, Warrington borough council, Nottingham city council, Cheshire East council and Newham borough council.
Spelthorne Borough Council
On 17 March, I informed the House that I was satisfied, having considered the best value inspection report, that Spelthorne borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty. Inspectors found that the council demonstrated a limited track record in proactively driving meaningful change and effectively implementing external recommendations. I proposed an intervention package to secure the council’s compliance with that duty and asked the council and others to provide representations by 28 March.
I received 12 representations which I considered carefully. I remain satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, leadership, governance, culture and use of resources. I have concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I proposed, with minor amendments. Today, I issued directions under section 15(5) and (6) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package.
That intervention package, to be in place until 31 May 2030, comprises four commissioners appointed to exercise specific council functions, alongside specific actions the council is required to take. I am confident that this package will address the failings identified and is necessary for the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.
Given the importance of creating sustainable unitary local government for Surrey, there is a case for urgent and decisive Government action to protect the interests of Spelthorne’s residents and taxpayers, and the public purse. I have therefore appointed the inspection team: Lesley Seary as lead commissioner, and Peter Robinson, Deborah McLaughlin and Mervyn Greer as commissioners, due to their extensive knowledge and experience.
I have issued directions which, in summary, require the council to:
Prepare and agree an improvement and recovery plan within six months and publicly update commissioners on progress after the first three months, six months and thereafter every six months.
Ensure the council has sufficient skills, capabilities and capacity to implement the plan.
With support of commissioners, work with Surrey councils on issues in relation to local government reorganisation in Surrey.
Initiate a full and open recruitment exercise within one month for a suitable permanent appointment to lead the improvement work in the authority and progress against these directions.
Fully co-operate with the commissioners and undertake any exercise of functions that would avoid further failure, in commissioners’ opinion.
The scale of the challenge in Spelthorne means that they must take immediate steps to address their governance, commercial and financial challenges and to make transformative change across its entire operations. Commissioners will be able exercise the following functions:
those associated with the source of Spelthorne’s failures—to strengthen the commercial decision-making, regeneration, property management and procurement functions of the authority;
those associated with delivering financial sustainability by closing any short or long-term budget gaps and reducing the authority’s exceptionally high level of external borrowing;
those associated with any changes needed to the authority’s operating model and transformation of council services to achieve value for money and financial sustainability, taking account of any decisions relating to proposals for unitary local government in Surrey; and
those that will ensure the council has the right skills and structures to make ongoing improvements across the entire organisation—including governance and scrutiny of strategic decisions, and the appointment, dismissal and performance management for senior and statutory officer positions.
The commissioners’ appointments and directions take effect from today. The commissioners will provide their first report in six months, with further reports every six months or as agreed with the commissioners.
As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the commissioners and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise being brought and the scale of the challenge.
As the council works with other Surrey councils on proposals for sustainable unitary local government for Surrey, creating simpler structures that will deliver the services that local people and businesses need and deserve, the needs of Spelthorne are likely to change throughout this period. Although commissioners will not input into local government reorganisation proposals before submission on 9 May, they will provide their views and oversight for the next stage. I have appointed the commissioners until January 2026: they will provide the requisite oversight, expertise and grip on Spelthorne’s position. I will also review at the appropriate time the directions and the commissioners’ roles, to ensure that Spelthorne has the support required to accelerate recovery and protect the public purse.
As always, I remain committed to working in partnership with Spelthorne borough council to provide whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty.
Warrington Borough Council
Best value inspection report
A capital review of Warrington borough council conducted by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy highlighted concerns around governance and decision making and following this, on 8 May 2024 the then Secretary of State (the right hon. Michael Gove), commissioned an inspection of the council’s compliance with its best value duty. Paul Najsarek was appointed lead inspector and was later joined by Richard Paver and Michael Hainge. The inspectors submitted their report to the Secretary of State, and I am publishing this today. I am grateful to the inspection team for their thorough work, and to the council and all participants for their co-operation.
The report identifies strengths within the council, including within children’s services and public sector partnerships and community engagement. However, it documents serious concerns:
On continuous improvement: The report describes “resistance” in the council’s response to external challenge processes. The inspectors are not confident the council has the “will and capacity” to make the necessary changes without external intervention.
On leadership: The report identifies a lack of strategic direction and “low challenge culture”. The council’s priorities are not aligned with its revenue budget and commercial programme challenges.
On governance: The council’s commercial programme lacks transparency, with key decision-making “disproportionately influenced by a small group of officers”. Despite concerns raised by external bodies, meaningful reforms have not been implemented. The absence of audited accounts since 2018-19 further leaves the council in a precarious position.
On culture: The report highlights that “members are highly respectful of powerful officers and there is a defensiveness to internal and external scrutiny”. This culture has contributed to a high-risk commercial programme, leaving the council “in a very exposed position”.
On use of resources: The council manages a complex, high-risk borrowing and investment programme without a clear strategy or the required expertise. It faces “an increasingly precarious revenue budget position with rapidly diminishing reserves”. The inspectors raise concerns about a potential breach of PWLB guidance.
Compliance with the best value duty
I have carefully considered the report and other relevant material, including the CIPFA review and the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge. I am satisfied that Warrington borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture, and use of resources. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) and (6) of the 1999 Act to implement an intervention package that ensures the council’s compliance with its best value duty.
The proposed intervention includes the appointment of ministerial envoys who specialise in leadership, governance, finance and commercial investment. This proposal represents a further evolution of our approach as this Government continue to test and learn how best to support councils to recover and reform. As part of our commitment to reset the relationship with local and regional government, I am seeking to develop the “envoy” model, which prioritises building a council’s own capacity to improve, by supporting its recovery primarily with expert advice, rather than taking over functions.
Under this model, my clear expectation is that the council will remain responsible for driving its own improvement with the support, challenge and advice from the ministerial envoys. To safeguard the process, some envoys will have power to exercise certain and limited functions to be treated as in reserve, intended to be used only as a last resort to ensure compliance with the best value duty. The proposed approach balances the evidenced need for government support with the leader’s commitment to work constructively so that we see sustained, long-term improvement.
I propose the intervention will be in place for five years, but should there be sufficient evidence of progress, functions will be handed back to the council earlier. The council will be directed to prepare and agree an improvement and recovery plan and progress against the plan must be demonstrated, through regular reports from the ministerial envoys.
Representations
I am inviting representations from Warrington borough council and any other interested parties, including residents, on the inspection report and proposed intervention package, by 22 May 2025. I have taken steps to ensure that this report will be seen by councils who are working together on proposals for devolution.
I will carefully consider all representations before deciding how to proceed. The proposal to intervene is not taken lightly but is designed to strengthen and accelerate improvement to ensure the council delivers for its residents and in partnerships. With council focus and support from the ministerial envoys, I expect the council to demonstrate the swift and sustained progress necessary to ensure compliance with its best value duty.
Nottingham City Council
Nottingham has been in intervention since January 2021; and commissioners were appointed in February 2024, led by Tony McArdle OBE. I am today publishing the commissioners’ latest report, received in March, which highlights good progress in planning, including the development of the strategic plan, medium term financial plan, and improvement plan. It is clear that the council continues to work closely with the commissioner team to move itself towards a more sustainable position. It is vital that this continues, with the full support of both officers and members throughout the organisation, and that the full range of reforms at the council must now be embedded alongside the collective work on developing proposals for local government reorganisation. I look forward to receiving the commissioners’ update in August.
Cheshire East Council and Newham Borough Council
Finally, I am updating the House on steps we are taking in relation to Cheshire East council and Newham borough council.
After carefully considering the relevant evidence, my Department has today issued these authorities with best value notices. These are not statutory interventions but provide a formal notification of the Department’s concerns. We found no evidence of current best value failure at the councils, but significant issues need addressing at pace to avoid future failure.
The councils are expected to continue driving their own recovery and are requested to engage with the Department for assurance of improvement. The notices will be in place for 12 months, after which progress will be reviewed. I am pleased that both councils are already supported by independent improvement boards, established with the LGA. I urge the councils to make full use of their boards’ expertise, and the Department will seek updates from them.
Conclusion
I am committed to working in partnership with these councils to provide the necessary support to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS620]
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office Annual Report 2023–2024
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
With the concurrence of the Lady Chief Justice, I will today publish the 17th annual report of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.
The JCIO supports the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in our joint statutory responsibility for judicial discipline.
The judiciary comprises approximately 20,000 individuals serving across a range of jurisdictions. Over the past year, the JCIO received 2,394 complaints against judicial office holders. A total of 58 investigations resulted in disciplinary action.
I have placed copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies are also available online at: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/reportsandpublications
[HCWS621]
Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: Statutory Guidance on Victim Support Roles
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
In January 2025, this Government commenced the first tranche of victim-related measures in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This was the first step towards ensuring that victims have the right information and the support they need.
I am pleased to announce that tomorrow we are building on these foundations by commencing section 16 of the 2024 Act, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance about victim support roles specified in regulations. Tomorrow we are also bringing into force regulations necessary to specify support roles for the purposes of this measure. Commencing this measure and the connected regulations enables the Government to publish statutory guidance tomorrow on two victim support roles: independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers. The provisions also commit the Government to publishing further guidance on independent stalking advocates in the future.
The statutory guidance intends to standardise the IDVA and ISVA roles, with the aim of ensuring that victims of domestic and sexual abuse consistently receive the support they need to recover and, where they have reported to the police, receive the right support to help them navigate the criminal justice system. The guidance aims to achieve this by setting out the support that the roles provide, the required training and qualifications, and how these roles work alongside other professionals who support victims or who work within the criminal justice system. Criminal justice bodies and others with public functions relating to victims and the wider criminal justice system will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the guidance and the best practice within it.
This measure underscores the Government’s landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade by helping to standardise victim support roles and strengthen multi-agency working to ensure that victims consistently receive the right support.
Copies of the IDVA, ISVA and ISA guidance will be placed in the Library of the House following publication.
[HCWS622]
Online Safety: Statement of Strategic Priorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I am today laying before Parliament the Government’s draft statement of strategic priorities for online safety. This statement is a critical document that outlines the Government’s areas of focus for online safety, and that the independent regulator, Ofcom, must have regard to as it continues its work to implement the Online Safety Act 2023.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. My Department’s role in that essential duty involves tackling the growing epidemic of online harm that is threatening the health and happiness of people across Britain.
Since we came into government, I have made it my priority to implement the Online Safety Act as quickly and effectively as possible. In March, the illegal codes of practice came into force, obliging firms to take steps to remove illegal content from the services they provide. Ofcom has already begun enforcement investigations.
By summer, the children’s codes will be fully in force. Service providers will have to protect children from harmful content, including pornography and the promotion of suicide, self-harm and eating disorders.
The pace of change in the online world means that we cannot afford to slow down. As we confront extraordinary new opportunities and grave new risks, our approach must be anchored in a set of principles about what a good online world looks like.
That is what the statement of strategic priorities sets out to do. It outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of online safety areas, including safety by design, transparency and accountability, agile regulation, inclusivity and resilience, and technology and innovation.
The statement follows a statutory consultation that ran between 20 November 2024 and 10 January 2025. A range of stakeholders with interest and expertise across the policy areas covered by the Act, including child safety and tackling violence against women and girls, were consulted. I would like to thank all respondents for taking the time and effort to respond.
These strategic priorities have been designed to support the ambitious implementation and delivery of the Act, to ensure that its protections are implemented as effectively as possible, delivering the best safety outcomes for all users. First and foremost, that means putting the safety of children at the foundation of our online world.
Ofcom, as the independent regulator, must have regard to the priorities set out in the statement when exercising its online safety functions. We are committed to working with Ofcom to implement the Act. Together, working with partners across civil society and industry, we will drive forward progress against these priorities to build a better online world for all.
I intend to designate the statement for the purposes of section 172 of the Online Safety Act after the end of the statutory “40-day period”, as defined in section 173 of the Act, unless either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it within that period.
[HCWS623]
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will now adjourn during pleasure until 11.59 am. Peers who have tickets to the Westminster Abbey service and are joining the procession should remain in the Chamber for Black Rod’s briefing. I encourage noble Lords not involved in these events to leave as quickly as possible to facilitate that briefing and before the procession, which will be broadcast. Proceedings in the House will recommence at 12 noon sharp and will start with the national two-minute silence. I therefore ask that noble Lords who are not at the service are back in the Chamber by 11.55 am, so that we can start with the silence cleanly at 12 noon. I beg to move.
Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increased risk of wildfires caused by climate change; and when they will publish a Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, outdoor fires, especially wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact, predominantly driven by climate change. The Home Office, as the former lead government department for wildfire, worked closely with Defra, its agencies and other stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and response to wildfires. The outcomes of this work are currently being considered following the transition of fire functions to MHCLG on 1 April.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are having a bad wildfire year, with 439 wildfires and 95 square miles burned already. By mid-April, the total burned area will be the second worst on record. Wildfires are devastating to people and property, and brutal to our biodiversity and net-zero efforts. I push the Government to do more. I ask the Minister to review our wildfire resilience plans for the rest of this year, to respond to the NFCC’s urgent calls for dedicated funding and specialist equipment, and for further action to improve public education.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is right to raise this important issue. The numbers he highlighted are worrying. We are working closely with the NFCC. We continue to fund the national resilience wildfire adviser, who is tasked with reviewing capability and approaches across the fire sector. We are also providing proactive public safety communications on barbeques, cigarettes and open fires, in collaboration with the National Fire Chiefs Council.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that there are three key ingredients to a wildfire: ignition, oxygen and fuel load? As most of the owners of our treasured landscape do not look after the fuel load, they are complicit in the wildfire problem. Would the Minister check that Natural England has the right scientists on board to advise these NGOs and other owners, and that it is taking account of the latest science on wildfire?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl made an interesting point and spoke about the ingredients that contribute to wildfires. On his request to check with Natural England, I will go back and check with colleagues on this particular area. We work with stakeholders across the country, in particular local fire and rescue services and fire authorities in relevant areas. I will come back to the noble Earl with some assurances of the work Natural England is doing.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to talk to the devolved nations and regions, particularly the Northern Ireland Executive. In Northern Ireland, there has been considerable prevalence of wildfires over the last months and the last few years. Could the Minister discuss with the devolved nations and regions causes and mitigation measures to ensure the protection of natural wildlife habitats?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend is right to highlight that wildfire is a devolved issue. The national resilience wildfire adviser covers the whole United Kingdom. My department has a very strong relationship with the devolved Governments across all areas, but I will have conversations with relevant counterparts within the devolved departments—those in Northern Ireland in particular—and find out more about how we can do things more collaboratively, as this issue affects all our nations.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Would the Minister look at the policy on moorland and the selective burning of firebreaks? Some of the policies, which do not allow any burning at all, mean that, if it does catch, the whole thing goes up and it is much harder to control. In the old days there was selective burning for producing firebreaks, which meant you could control fires much more easily.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Earl made an important point. I highlight that the responsibility for land management policies sits with my colleagues in Defra. I understand there are a number of methods that land managers may use to mitigate wildfire risk. Defra recognises that, in certain circumstances, prescribed burning may be the most important tool. Defra encourages landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans and to use sustainable methods to manage habitats.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to describe climate change as the driver for the wildfires. Mitigation is always good in land management plans and so on, but what about the initial point of climate change? What more can the Government do? Can they go further and faster on various issues?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. I have said before about climate change. I understand the Met Office predicts that the UK will experience more frequent and intense weather extremes. It is widely believed that the impact of climate change is likely to increase and intensify fire incidence. We are already doing so much. We are the leading department for wildfire response and own wildfire risk in the national risk register. We are looking at relationships and co-ordinating across government between key wildfire stakeholders. We have already appointed a national resilience wildfire adviser, who we will work closely with, and are working with the NFCC on the very important issues the noble Baroness outlined.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, we have just seen quite a devastating fire on Beeley Moor in Derbyshire. Everybody would want the Government to do as much as they can to help educate adults. Have the Government considered banning disposable barbeques?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my thoughts are with the people affected by the fire in Derbyshire. The noble Lord makes a strong argument, and I will take that away with me to reflect upon.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think we are all aware of the devastating recent fires in Los Angeles. If we understand correctly, part of that was due to underinvestment and lack of planning locally. I do not think the Minister quite answered the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so I ask again: what are the Government going to do, particularly in rural areas, to make sure we have adequate equipment? That includes the availability of planes and helicopters for bringing water in, and training our firefighters to respond effectively to the risk of wildfires, which we are increasingly seeing.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, could my noble friend take this opportunity to praise the work of our brave fire and rescue service operatives, who have to deal with these sorts of fires on a daily basis? Does this topic not emphasise the fact that, despite the great reduction in domestic fires in recent years, we still need a fully effective, well-staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service to deal with the modern challenges we face?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I praise all those brave people for serving our country by dealing with fire and rescue. I will make a particular point about resourcing: overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.87 billion in 2024-25, and stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of up to £65.5 million in 2025-26, which includes the national insurance contributions grant. This is an increase of 3.6% in cash terms compared with 2024-25. Decisions on how their resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders across the sector to ensure that fire and rescue services have the resources they need to protect communities.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, as we face this problem, the two most important things are prevention and mitigation. Will the Minister tell his department to review the current policy that prevents landowners creating firebreaks, as it currently does more damage to the climate rather than save it?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a really important point. As I said previously, fire functions have been transferred from the Home Office to my department. I will work very closely with officials and push them, particularly on the point the noble Baroness raises. I will also have a meeting with the designated Minister to scope the options, reports and approaches available here; we will make sure that her point is considered and reflected on in our discussions.
Care Quality Commission: Mental Health Care Waiting Times
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the results of the survey undertaken by the Care Quality Commission, showing that people are waiting too long for mental health care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, it is unacceptable that too many people are waiting too long for mental health care, as the Care Quality Commission survey makes clear. Mental health is a key priority for this Government. We are already transforming services, including through introducing new models of community-based care, recruiting 8,500 mental health workers and expanding mental health support teams so that we can provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, and I welcome the progress that is being made. As she will be aware, yesterday the NHS Confederation published a report, based on research by the Centre for Mental Health, setting out urgent tasks that need to be undertaken. I know that she understands the need for parity of esteem; that could be marked by her giving the recommendations early consideration with a favourable turn of mind.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am aware of the very helpful report that my noble friend refers to. I acknowledge the challenges highlighted in that report and will certainly take into account the points it makes. I regularly meet with and listen to the sector on what we can do to improve outcomes and transform mental health services, and this report will of course feed into that.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, the NHS planning guidance for 2025-26 reduced the overall number of targets, including those for mental health, and the guidance given was of a fairly generalised and vague nature. In the absence of any such targets, what specific incentives are currently in the system for ICBs to prioritise improvements in mental health services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness says, we reduced the number of targets on the basis of the recommendation by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, that having so many targets was not delivering the results that we want. We have had to think boldly and innovatively. Since July 2023, NHS England has included waiting time metrics for referrals to urgent and community-based mental health services. I am looking at how we can drive improvements in quality and in the data to help services, particularly those with the most lengthy waits. I will also review the 2021-22 clinical review of standards to consider what else can be done to put mental health on a more equal footing, which it absolutely deserves.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve access to perinatal mental health services? The Minister will appreciate the urgency, given that suicide remains a leading cause of maternal death.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is particularly appropriate that the noble Baroness raises this issue, as it is Maternal Mental Health Awareness Week. Yesterday I was very glad to attend an event organised by the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, where I spoke to women about their experience and what has made—or not made—a difference to them. I know we are looking forward to a debate on this later in the year, but 41 maternal mental health services have already been set up to provide care for women with moderate, severe or complex mental health difficulties, and more than 62,000 women are reported to have accessed a specialist community perinatal mental health service or a maternal mental health service. Additionally, 165 beds have now been commissioned across England in 20 mother and baby units, providing in-patient care to women. But yes, we need to do more.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, in some NHS trusts, autistic patients with learning needs and poor mental health are automatically opted into video and phone appointments, despite their communication needs. It feels as if the needs of the NHS and doctors working from home are prioritised over patient care. I know this from experience, because my son was repeatedly given video and phone appointments, even though I kept saying I wanted him to be seen in person. What can the Government do to ensure that there is a uniform approach across trusts, that patient care is prioritised and that guidelines are adhered to?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising her experience with her family. It is clear that patients are individual people and they need to be cared for and communicated with in the way that is appropriate to them. So I am sorry to hear what she reports; that is not what we expect. If she has not already provided the details, I will be pleased to look into the matter she raises, because it has repercussions across the whole system, as she rightly says.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the overwhelming majority of mental health conditions start in childhood and adolescence, and we need to do everything to give those children and young people the very best start in life. Yet, regrettably, we know that there are 35,000 children in this country who have been on a waiting list for two years or more. I listened closely to my noble friend on the excellent work that this Government are doing with the support teams in schools, but for those children and young people who have met the threshold for services, what more can be done to alleviate these unacceptable waits?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for her contribution in supporting awareness and improved mental health, not just for young people but in maternity settings and across all mental health services. This morning I was at Alexandra Park School, where I saw what I regard as the exemplar for what my noble friend is talking about, because we need to prevent mental ill-health in young people. That is why we are extending the mental health support teams to ensure that every school has that available. While that is being developed, funding is available for mental health leads in schools. We are also working with local areas to ensure that they meet their obligations to the local community, which of course includes young people. I also feel that our Young Futures hubs will make a big difference. I agree with her: we have inherited a difficult position, but I assure your Lordships’ House that we are working to make progress, particularly for young people.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, what assessment has the department made of the benefits and risks of the growing trend that is being reported of those who are unable to access affordable mental health care therefore turning to AI platforms such as Grok and ChatGPT, which are of course unverified for this use?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness says, it is very important that people use the right support. Otherwise, there is immense danger in going for what is perhaps less suitable. To my knowledge, we have not made a particular assessment, but I will pick up the noble Baroness’s point, because it is very right. On a more positive note, we are—and I am particularly—looking at what support we can develop in a digital and online sense to support people, not just on waiting lists but to prevent ill health and assist in their recovery.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, given that there is a waiting list for mental health care, including community-based services, and given the many competing demands on public finances, what can the Minister tell the House about conversations that her department and local ICBs may well be having with local community non-state civil society organisations, including those that offer music, art, talking drama, dance and other therapies, to help those on the waiting list?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Lord is aware, I regard the contribution of the community sector—the third sector—as absolutely crucial here. I personally work very closely, like the department more generally, both to improve our practice and to recognise the difference that the creative arts, for example, can add to people’s mental well-being, as the noble Lord says.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, in my own city of Leicester, some excellent work is being done with minority-ethnic communities in particular to help with access to mental health services. Nevertheless, significant inequalities remain. What more is being done to address those inequalities, particularly as they relate to people whose first language is not English?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
What the right reverend Prelate raises is absolutely key: tackling inequalities in mental ill-health is so important. We know that some groups are more excluded than others, and this is taken into account in the preparation of the 10-year plan, which will be published over the next few months. I hope the right reverend Prelate will, like me, find that the 10-year plan addresses how we will tackle inequalities over the coming years—it will do so—because that is a key point.
EU-UK Summit: Visa Waiver Agreement
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to negotiate a visa waiver agreement for creative professionals touring the EU; and whether this will be on the agenda at the EU-UK summit on 19 May.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to a closer and more co-operative relationship with the EU. The UK-EU summit will be an important milestone towards a new strategic partnership, and we will provide further details on the agenda in due course. We are engaging constructively with the EU and member states to improve touring arrangements, allowing our artists to contribute to Europe’s rich cultural landscape and support shared growth while respecting the regulatory frameworks on both sides.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, it is a little disappointing that the Government cannot confirm, with 11 days to go, whether touring will be on the agenda of the 19 May summit. Talking with other EU Culture Ministers is helpful—if this was discussed by Chris Bryant in Poland—but would the Minister not agree that, ultimately, this issue has to be resolved directly with the EU, not least because of the significant cross-border aspects to the problem? Cabotage is a major aspect of that. The Government promised to sort this; they need to do so.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his continued interest and for putting us all under pressure on this important issue. I emphasise that supporting touring artists was a manifesto commitment for the Government a year ago. As such, it is a priority for the Government. We remain in constructive dialogue with the EU on tackling the challenges facing cultural and creative professionals and their support staff when touring in the EU, along with many other issues. It is a very important date in the diary, and we will provide details of the agenda in due course.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as part of our inquiry into the EU-UK reset, the European Affairs Committee of this House took evidence from the Independent Society of Musicians recently and was told that, since the Brexit agreement, there has been a very unlevel playing field for our UK musicians. It is not just an unlevel playing field: it seems a number of own goals were scored in the drawing up of the agreement, not just on cabotage but on carnets and musical instrument certificates. So can my noble friend the Minister assure me that there will be full discussions with the music industry and creative artists before 19 May so that there is a thorough grasp of the problems facing them?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can reassure my noble friend. She raises very important points about some of the failings and inadequacies of the arrangements that came through the original discussions, which are absolutely critical. I reassure my noble friend that, as well as Minister Bryant visiting counterparts in Europe, officials are engaging on a regular basis. Obviously, consultation with the sector is paramount. We need to make sure that, in moving forward and achieving the reset and rebalance, we put the needs of everyone on the table and make sure that we do not leave anyone out of the future discussions.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, as was said by the two previous speakers, the results of Brexit are causing absolute havoc with the abilities of our creatives to tour. I want to pick up the cabotage rules, which limit the number of stops a British vehicle can make in the EU to three. We hear a lot about rock tours, but actually our orchestras are being severely affected by this. The Royal Philharmonic says that the resources it is losing are directly impacting on its education programme. Can the Minister assure us that this is on the agenda in the UK-EU reset talks?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. We have discussed cabotage in this Chamber before. It is extremely complex. I do not know how it could have come about that it was not foreseen that having to stop at all the different borders of EU countries would not present an enormous problem.
This issue is certainly on the agenda generally and is the subject of discussions. I look forward to the outcome of many of these discussions, and particularly the outcome of the summit itself, which is going to be a very important and wider moment in terms of bringing politicians and officials together on a whole range of issues.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, put forward a really strong point, for which there is widespread support in the House. At the summit there will obviously be requests from many other groups and organisations. Can the Minister give a firm assurance to Parliament that the price of these special waivers will not be any concessions on fisheries?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am given some challenges at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say that that is a particular one. The point that I am trying to get across is that the discussions, particularly at the summit, have to consider the broadest range of issues that are facing us through the reset and setting up strategic partnerships. I shall certainly take back the comment about fisheries—but I am sure that other people will be making important points as well.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
Let us get back to the broader issues—and one of them is this. Culture, whether it be music, dance or drama, depends on the exchange of ideas. What we have at the moment is a profoundly philistine situation, and it is affecting individuals. I have heard from the leaders of opera houses and festivals in Europe that they are—let us put it this way—reluctant to engage British artists at the moment because of the costs.
As the Minister mentioned, we have had recent exchanges on the Floor of the House about this problem, and I was very heartened to hear Brexiteers—people from the right, including the noble Lord, Lord Frost—say that this needs finessing. So please will the Government get on with this with more urgency than the previous Government did?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I add my thanks to all the contributions around this. In this context it is particularly important to recognise that it is not just musicians who are being affected by the situation in Europe; it is a very broad area. I personally have been in contact with opera singers who are struggling to take up short-term pieces of work in Europe, for example. Of course, our concern remains with young people and how they go out and make their mark on a wider stage. So, absolutely, this is a priority, and we should be heartened by the fact that Minister Bryant went over to Poland in February—the first Minister to do so—to build on the relationships, as so much of this is about relationships, making face-to-face contact and making sure that the important matters before us are kept on the agenda.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, a further issue for UK orchestras is the issue of withholding tax, incurred when they tour to countries such as Germany, Spain and Italy. In Germany, withholding tax is reclaimable, but it can take up to two years to be refunded. One London orchestra is awaiting a £250,000 refund from Germany, making a serious dent in its cash flow. Possible mitigation of this would be exemptions for cultural organisations or other measures to ease the administrative burden. Will discussions on this be held in the EU-UK summit on 19 May?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising this important issue. Of course, the UK Government recognise the financial and administrative challenges that withholding tax presents for UK artists touring in the EU. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are carefully considering the most effective ways to help our touring artists to contribute to Europe’s rich cultural landscape, so that we can provide European audiences with a diverse offering and support UK-EU cultural collaboration. I can only repeat that I cannot be more specific about the 19 May summit—but it is a very important issue that she raises.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is disappointing that, with 11 days to go before the summit, the Minister cannot yet answer the question that the noble Earl poses on behalf of our creative professionals, particularly when the Government are now admitting what they had previously denied—that they are open to a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. Rather than allowing young people with no job to come to the UK without restriction, would not it be better to prioritise the hard-working creative professionals who want to tour more readily across the continent, bringing joy to our lives as well as value to our economies?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
At the top of my lines, I do have the advice to make sure that we keep the collaborative spirit between us. But can I be frank? We have a summit coming up a week on Monday. Is that not progress from where we were before?
US Tariff on UK Films
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of a USA tariff levied at 100 per cent on UK films, and what discussions they are planning with the industry.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we are in active discussions with the top of the US Administration and we are clear that the deep ties between the US and UK film industries provide mutual benefits to both countries. This is a fluid situation, and we will continue to take a calm and steady approach. We are engaging closely with industry, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our film and TV sector can continue to thrive.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their calm approach, but the UK film and TV industry employs more than 200,000 people directly and indirectly in productions and is worth £4.8 billion in investment. Given that 87% of last year’s investment into the UK’s 191 films was external, can the Minister reassure the House that the sector and the Government are developing a plan to protect current investment levels from tariffs?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the film sector is, as my noble friend says, a key part of the UK’s world-class creative industries and, as such, we are committed to ensuring that it continues to grow and create good jobs across the UK. Inward investment is vital, and we will work with international partners to continue to build on current successes. Supporting our domestic sector is equally important, and we will, as my noble friend asks, soon publish our creative industries sector plan to set up further support for the film industry and the wider creative industries, including increased support from the British Business Bank to access finance.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their calm approach, but will the Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge that none of this—the defence of the film industry and other industries—would be possible were it not for the fact that we had left the European Union?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am not sure where to start with that one, to be quite honest. I think we have heard all the way through the difficulties that the Brexit agreement has left our creative industries with. I cannot subscribe to the opinion that the noble Lord has put forward. These are indeed interesting times. When I woke up this morning and heard the news about an announcement later today—sometimes you feel like putting your head back under the duvet. But there you go. The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but it is not one that we share.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, while the T-word across the pond is “tariffs”, here our film industry has been thriving thanks to tax credits. They have been a game-changer—the kind of investment that President Trump wants to repatriate. Whatever his plans—and I think the Minister mentioned this—should we not be looking to make our industry more resilient? Will the Government act to tackle the film skills issue with strategic thinking? If the answer is, “with the forthcoming creative industries industrial strategy”, when will we see the results? I hope that they will be of a cross-departmental nature.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness touches on an issue very close to my heart. I find it absolutely fascinating that, as a high-profile industry, the film industry is not more attractive to young people coming through the system. There has to be much greater awareness of what is involved. We also want to make sure that careers in screen are accessible to everyone. Of course, we have the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority working with us, and our “make work pay” initiatives. There is much going into this, but I completely recognise the further work that needs to be done linking to curriculum changes, attracting young people in, but protecting those who are already in the industry.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, at the risk of driving the Minister back under her pillow, I would like to ask about the digital sales tax, which has been part of the US trade negotiations. Can the Minister tell the House whether the tax, which President Trump has called “overseas extortion”, will be abolished for US tech companies as part of the trade agreement that we are expecting this afternoon?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, but we have to wait until the announcement is made and then we can look at the detail and discuss it further.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that the first film office was established in Liverpool in the mid-1990s with European funding. The recent BBC drama “This City Is Ours” provided a £9 million boost to the local Merseyside city region economy, the most recent of very many over 30 years. Screen Alliance North has launched an industry-wide group to improve sustainability in productions right across the north. Film and production apprenticeships have created pathways—I am coming to my question—to high-GDP sustainable jobs in a growth industry to hundreds of local people from traditionally deprived communities. Can my noble friend reassure me that the Government will take proactive steps to retain and indeed grow this vital economic, social and cultural driver for working people across the north? It is a vital component in the development of our region—
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend raises an issue that I am very passionate about. I can list similar initiatives across Yorkshire, which has become a real centre for film, as most noble Lords will know. I reassure her about the measures we are bringing in around tax relief uplift, independent film tax relief and—something that will be close to her heart—the whole issue of looking at how we can help through a review of business rates. We have confirmed a 40% relief for film studios until 2034 and plan to permanently lower rates for eligible cinemas and other retail, hospitality and leisure properties. It is so important that the regions are kept at the forefront of this agenda. Some mayors have put this as one of the central planks in their future planning. It is critical that we keep our eye on the whole of the country and improve opportunities.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government have had a very good week on trade. We have just signed a deal with India, the fourth biggest economy in the world—about to become the third biggest—and we hope to have an announcement today that we will have a deal with the largest economy and our largest trading partner, the United States. The great benefits will accrue like compound interest, but can the Minister confirm that the full measure of these benefits will be felt by our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland, not only in the film industry, which is important there, but across the board?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The point that I made in answer to the previous question was in relation to the regions of England, but of course the devolved authorities must come into this picture. In moving forward with the trade deals that we have, we must not forget the significance of the EU market, particularly in this area of the creative industries. It is fundamental that we keep that at the front of our minds and protect those people who most need it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the creative industries face threats on a number of fronts, including trade tariffs on touring, as we heard earlier, and the widespread theft of their copyright. I am grateful to the Government for their efforts to avoid tariffs for the film industry—of which I was once a part—and to restore touring rights. However, can the Minister say why the Government have not shown similar support on the industry’s need to protect its property rights from overseas AI companies? I ask her to discuss this with her colleagues before the data legislation comes to this House on Monday, when I will try to insist that the Government look at it one more time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Yes, obviously, we need to keep this under review. It is heartbreaking for artists to lose their copyright in this way. It is an important issue, and one that we are still learning about.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today. This may be a convenient moment for noble Lords who wish to do so to leave the Chamber—not while I am on my feet, if I may remind the House. This is not the occasion for leisurely conversations on the way out or in. Perhaps the House would be kind enough to allow the deputy and I to change places before the stampede begins.
Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.
Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3 March be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to provide an update on the territorial extent of the Bill. The focus of the Bill is on clarifying personal property law, which is devolved to Northern Ireland. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the Northern Ireland Assembly has granted consent for the Bill’s extension to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this Bill, which colleagues will know has undergone extensive scrutiny by the Special Public Bill Committee since its introduction in September. The Bill underscores our commitment to fostering innovation, both now and in the future. It supports our efforts to ensure that the jurisdictions of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland, remain at the forefront of jurisdictions globally, providing a flexible legal framework for digital assets that can react to their dynamic nature and to technologies not yet imagined or created. By modernising the law of personal property, it will enable more efficient dispute resolution by removing the need for courts to discuss questions around categorisation. It will also attract international businesses to use these jurisdictions and promote economic growth.
I take this opportunity to thank those who have engaged with and supported the passage of the Bill, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who chaired the Special Public Bill Committee. He expertly led us through some very nuanced and technical issues, and I also thank the committee’s clerk, Matthew Burton. That leads me on to thanking the other members of the committee, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam, Lord Cryer, Lord Shamash, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Holmes, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and, last but not least, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am certain that each has found the process as fascinating as I have, and I enjoyed playing a part in ensuring that our law continues to be fit for purpose in an increasingly technological world.
I give particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who raised many interesting areas for the committee to consider and helped to ensure that the Bill passes through the House of Lords in its best possible form. I must also thank the Law Commission, which undertook two extensive consultations as part of its project on digital assets. In particular, I thank Laura Burgoyne and Chris Long, who did an excellent review that helped the Government make a fully informed decision to take the Bill forward. I also thank my private office—Melissa Leonard—and the Bill team: Bill manager Harry McNeill-Adams, Susannah Keogh, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear. I am hugely grateful to all those who contributed to the evidence collected by the committee, both written and verbal, and ensured that the committee could fully assess the Bill and that the best possible version of it is going to the other place.
The result of these efforts is a simple but elegant Bill. It will support our efforts to remain a pre-eminent jurisdiction, with English and Welsh law and Northern Irish law being the global law of choice. It will signal that the UK is a leader in innovation and technology. It is important that the Bill passes into law as quickly as possible, so we can capitalise on this. We pass this Bill on in excellent condition, and I hope that it can complete its passage and become law as swiftly as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who is not in his place but currently on the Woolsack, said on Report, the two clauses of this Bill fully reflect neither the nearly 1,000 pages of learning that the Law Commission produced on the subject of digital assets, nor the almost equal volume of written and oral evidence received by the Special Public Bill Committee, variously approving the Law Commission’s approach and characterising the Bill as pointless or even dangerous. That the Committee, which I chaired, was able to consider these issues and debate them out with a degree of thoroughness in the Moses Room prior to a further debate, largely thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on Report, is a tribute to our clerk, Matthew Burton, and all members of the committee—including not least the Minister—whose collective expertise was remarkable.
My only remaining concern is that, since the committee was entirely lacking in female members, it is entirely possible that we have succeeded in missing something obvious. The work of this House is now complete. I was delighted to hear just now that the Bill has been endorsed in Northern Ireland, and I wish it well on its onward journey.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Law Commission for its work on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has mentioned the almost 1,000 pages of work from the Law Commission, its consultation paper, the final report, the supplemental report—no one accused the Law Commission of a lack of thoroughness as far as this two-clause Bill is concerned. Its purpose, as it said, was to ensure that the courts can respond sensitively to the complexity of emerging technology and apply the law to new fact patterns involving that technology. It also said:
“We conclude that the flexibility of common law allows for the recognition of a distinct category of personal property that can better recognise, accommodate and protect the unique features of certain digital assets (including crypto-tokens and cryptoassets). We recommend legislation to confirm the existence of this category and remove any uncertainty”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has explained, we have thoroughly examined the resulting Bill under the Special Public Bill procedure, and it clearly fulfils that purpose, so I would like to thank our witnesses. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his excellent chairing of the committee; our clerk, Matthew Burton; the Minister, of course; my fellow members for all their work on the Bill; and I agree with the Minister’s particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his stimulating and provocative input into our deliberations. But, as ever, there is more work to be done. The Law Commission recommended that the Government create a panel of industry experts who can provide guidance on technical and legal issues relating to digital assets, and I understand that the Ministry of Justice has asked the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, an expert group chaired by the Master of the Rolls that produces non-binding guidance on areas of legal uncertainty, to take forward this work.
The Law Commission also made recommendations to provide market participants with legal tools that do not yet exist in England and Wales, let alone in Northern Ireland, such as new ways to take security over crypto tokens and tokenised securities. It recommended that this work be undertaken by a multidisciplinary project team. Whether the Minister can give us an update today, I do not know, but I very much hope that he will write to members of the committee, because that is unfinished business and it would be very useful to hear from the Minister about it.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. Like other noble Lords, I have, rightfully, a long list of thanks, not least to all those witnesses who gave oral and written evidence to our Special Bill Committee; to Matthew Burton, our clerk, and all his team; to the Minister for his careful and thoughtful engagement, and all his officials; and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his excellent chairing of our Special Bill Committee.
This is a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores, because through our legislative process, the world is watching what we do in this space. We have a great fintech tradition in this country, a great fintech ecosystem, and whether it is financial market infrastructure, dematerialisation of our capital markets or crucially important financial inclusion, digital assets have a critical role to play. With some trillions of the UK and world economy due to be transacted by digital assets by the end of this decade, the UK needs to ensure that it is well set for this future. The Bill does this through non-prescription, but using the great good fortune of English and Welsh common law, with its agility and its adaptability, as the Minister rightly said, for new technologies not yet even imagined.
It was an extraordinary pleasure to be part of this legislative process. My only question for the Minister is whether there is a schedule yet in the other place, so we can ensure that Bill becomes law as soon as possible. Not only does it send a signal to the world; it sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets in this country that with the financial centre of London and our fantastic fintech start-ups, scale-ups and larger businesses, London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place to be involved in digital assets business.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this was indeed a fascinating Committee in which to participate. I have no doubt that this effectively one-clause Bill will make an important contribution to the development of the law in a fast-developing field and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere—including those as yet unimagined—which might otherwise fail to be protected. It is important for fintech, as we have heard, and it is very important for the City of London in retaining its place in the financial world in which we live.
The evidence we heard from interested parties, not just lawyers, raised a body of issues which took some digesting, and my noble friend Lord Holmes raised important questions. However, under the clear and thoughtful guidance of our distinguished chair, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, we found, with little disagreement, that—apart from a small change to the Bill’s title—we should leave it well alone. The Law Commission is to be congratulated on its hard work and on reducing a vast body of material to this very crisp Bill. We found it small but perfectly formed.
In all this process, we had the inestimable help of the committee clerk, Matthew Burton, to whom I am most grateful, not least for his excellent summary of the evidence and issues to help our final deliberations. It is with no hesitation that we on this side commend this Bill and hope it will be passed swiftly.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Bill has the support of all noble Lords who have spoken. I note that three Whips are sitting in my presence, and I am sure they will have heard the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on the lack of female members of the committee and will see whether we can do better next time. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his questions, as I am unable to answer them right now. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about the schedule. I also cannot answer that question, but I suspect it will go down very soon. If there is any update, I will provide it to him.
I conclude in the spirit of agreement and endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that this is a small but perfectly formed Bill, but it will have one hell of an impact. We want to make sure that it makes the best possible impact. I beg to move.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations specifying additional circumstances in which the duty to offer a guaranteed hours contract does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his letter explaining certain matters that were left over from the last day of Committee. The fact that the algebraic question required a three-page, detailed answer for one worked-up example rather illustrates our point that this adds a huge and possibly unnecessary level of complexity for small businesses in particular. But I will let that lie for now.
Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name would remove the broad delegated power in new Section 27BD. This Bill continues the concerning trend of the steady transfer of legislative authority from Parliament to Ministers. As I noted at Second Reading, it contains no fewer than 173 delegated powers. The Government may, and probably will, argue that this is justified by ongoing consultation, but that is in effect an admission that this Bill is not yet complete or ready for full and proper scrutiny by this House.
Time and again, we have seen ill-defined powers handed to the Executive allowing for significant policy changes to be made by regulation without meaningful parliamentary oversight. Clause 1 exemplifies this problem. It inserts new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996, establishing a framework for a new statutory right relating to guaranteed hours. However, through new Section 27BD(6), it grants the Secretary of State a remarkably wide power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or where an offer may be treated as withdrawn. There are no limitations, no criteria and no guiding principles. There is no requirement for a consultation or justification. In effect, the Secretary of State is given a blank cheque.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has been very clear that the power is “inappropriately broad” and should be
“restated with a greater degree of precision”.
While the Government’s memorandum refers to
“maintaining the original policy intent while allowing reasonable exemptions”,
the committee rightly points out that nothing in the Bill legally constrains the Secretary of State’s discretion in that regard. Moreover, as we raised on the first day of Committee, businesses need clarity on the operation of guaranteed hours. If there are to be sector-specific exemptions—and there may very well be a case for them—they should appear in the Bill, not be left to future ministerial discretion. Uncertainty benefits no one—not workers, not employers and not enforcement bodies. Allowing such fundamental aspects of the regime to be decided later by regulation undermines the transparency and stability of the framework that the Government are seeking to establish.
I remind the Minister that, during the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, she rightly accepted similar concerns and tabled amendments which directly reflected the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At the time, she said:
“I hope the Minister is able to commit to taking on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in this respect”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 198.]
Why should that principle not apply here? If it is truly the Government’s intention that this power will be used only in limited and specific cases, then the legislation should make that clear. As it stands, any future Secretary of State could by regulation significantly weaken or disapply this statutory regime without the involvement of Parliament.
Regardless of one’s views on the underlying policy, that is not an acceptable way to legislate. When Parliament creates new rights in statute, they should not be left vulnerable to being hollowed out at the stroke of a ministerial pen. This amendment removes that overly broad delegated power and ensures that any substantive changes to the scope of the duty must be brought back to Parliament through primary legislation. Will the Minister now commit, as she has done before, to taking seriously the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and amending the Bill accordingly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, it is very good to return to the subject of zero-hours contracts as we start day 2 of Committee. As we debated last week, the Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility and exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and their finances.
Employers who already provide this security and predictability for their workers will benefit from a level playing field, but these measures will help drive up standards and eliminate undercutting across the board. Meanwhile, employees who enjoy the flexibility of their current zero-hours arrangements will not be pressurised into accepting a guaranteed-hour contract.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 18 and 19, which would remove the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn. This power would allow the Secretary of State to react dynamically to changing employment practices that may arise, allowing for updates to maintain the original policy intent of providing a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives. It could provide the required economic flexibility that businesses have been asking for, to ensure that the policy is working as intended while adapting to changing circumstances.
This power is separate to the power in the Bill to exclude categories of workers. Regulations made under the excluded workers power would allow specified workers to be taken out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. Since the right to guaranteed hours is a new, novel right, it could be necessary to exclude certain workers in order to respond to the changing employment environment.
The power at issue here relates to specified circumstances where the right to guaranteed hours would otherwise apply but limited and specified circumstances justified an exception to the duty to make a guaranteed-hour offer. We envisage that any exceptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be narrow and be applied in specified circumstances; for instance, where the measures would otherwise have significant adverse impacts, even when the employers and the workers act with good intentions and there is no other accepted way to mitigate the risk. Examples could include unforeseen circumstances such as a pandemic or a state of emergency.
Consultation is required to further determine which specific circumstances may justify a potential exemption. I assure the Committee that we will give full consideration to any representations made in this House and by respondents to that consultation. Gathering the views from those who will be impacted by the policy via consultation remains of the utmost importance to this Government. By removing the power, we would become unable to make such exceptions and to provide flexibility in those specific circumstances. The power will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses will have the opportunity to debate this matter.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I am, as ever, grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its careful consideration of the Bill, including in relation to the power with which we are here concerned. The committee continues to serve your Lordships’ House well by providing a thoughtful analysis of the Government’s legislative programme, and I thank it for that.
As acknowledged by that committee, the need to respond to changing circumstances is an appropriate basis for such a power, but in the committee’s view, that power should be narrowed—whereas the amendment goes much further than what has been proposed by it. On that basis, I hope I have been able to set out more information on how the Government intend to use this power, and I of course look forward to responding more fully to the Delegated Powers Committee report in due course. I hope that reassures the noble Lord so that he feels able not to press his Amendments 18 and 19.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, but I have to confess that I am disappointed, not simply that the amendment is being rejected but that the Minister has chosen not to uphold the principle of parliamentary scrutiny which she championed herself only last year. At that time, she said
“the limits on effective scrutiny of secondary legislation are manifest”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 197.]
That is spot on; I could not agree more, so I have to ask: does the Minister still stand by those words, or does she now disagree with her own assessment—and indeed that of the Attorney-General? I will refrain from quoting again from the Bingham lecture that he gave last November, but we may have to return to that in due course.
Today, the Government are defending a delegated power that is not just broad but boundless. It is a power that allows a future Secretary of State to undo or dilute a statutory right without reference to Parliament and without any of the safeguards the Minister has previously endorsed. I am disappointed, and I regret that the Minister has chosen not to accept these amendments or to listen to the Committee, but it seems that she does not listen even to her own warnings. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
(c) in determining whether it was reasonable to enter into a limited-term contract, regard must be had to the employer’s operational circumstances and information available at the time the contract was made, including—(i) genuine short-term business needs or uncertainty,(ii) seasonal, project-based, or event-based fluctuations,(iii) relevant financial or staffing forecasts, and(iv) industry norms or practices relating to temporary contracts.(d) a decision to enter into a limited-term contract must not be considered unreasonable solely because subsequent business conditions changed in a manner not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reasonableness of entering into a limited-term contract should be assessed based on the employer’s operational context and the information available at the time of contracting. It lists specific factors that may be relevant to that assessment and states that unforeseeable changes in business conditions after the fact should not, by themselves, render a decision unreasonable.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, with Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, we return to guaranteed hours. As drafted, our concern is that the Bill risks creating rigidity which does not properly reflect the real-world operational needs of businesses across key sectors of our economy, particularly retail, hospitality and tourism, all of which contain seasonal work.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I welcome back the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for another day on this important Bill.
To some extent, we are thrown back to the previous day’s debate, when we talked so much about flexibility. These amendments are designed to try to give more flexibility to the poor business owner who sits up late at night after the working day is done, trying to figure out, “How am I going to win? How am I going to succeed? How am I going to keep going?” It is of particular poignancy when one looks at what is happening to the high street all over this country, with shop after shop, particularly small businesses, closing down.
In last week’s debate, there was an interesting comment about the minimum wage. I am afraid that my memory is not good enough, but a noble Lord said, “Well, they all said that the minimum wage would be a disaster, but here it is: a triumphant success”. I think we are united, as a House, in looking for economic growth—that is the big objective. Economic growth comes only from jobs and businesses growing, so a triumphant success would be that there was more employment and that employment did not drop down.
Both sides of this House went for this higher and higher minimum wage, so I am not making a partisan attack here, but the impact is unknowable because we do not know whether employment would have been higher or lower if we had had no minimum wage or a lower one. We cannot actually tell; it is one of those mathematical enigmas. In America, the states that have no minimum wage, or a lower one, have higher employment, and people move from one state to another to find employment in the states with higher growth—but here we literally cannot tell whether employment went up or down.
What we can tell—this is a very interesting point—is that the introduction of the minimum wage and the higher minimum wage led precisely to what we are debating today: zero-hours contracts. A businessperson may be thinking, “Shall I hire somebody?”, and they have three choices. One is, “Yes, I can afford this on the minimum wage”—and great: a new job is created. The second is that they say, “No, I can’t afford that”. Particularly with a gormless youth—I remember back to my own gormless youth, when I was almost unhireable by anybody—they will say, “No, I’m not going to do it. My business will be less profitable if I hire this person and have to pay the minimum wage”. The third is: “Well, can I hire them but in some other, more flexible way?”—and here comes this whole zero-hours thing. Everybody denigrates it, but we find that a lot of people who are hired on these contracts say it is what they wanted—but, God bless, we can have different ideological views on that. The point was that zero-hours contracts created flexibility, and that must by definition have led to higher employment and economic growth, the thing that we are all trying to accomplish.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 19A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and offer my support for Amendments 20 and 21.
My main concern, as I expressed on the first day in Committee, is over the impact of guaranteed-hours contracts on the small and micro-business sector, specifically those with fewer than 50 staff. Amendment 19A is particularly relevant to start-ups and scale-ups, and we cannot ignore their high-risk operational context. Again, I declare my interest as set out in the register: I chair, advise and invest in a range of start-ups.
Clause 1’s right to guaranteed hours will inhibit job creation but also job mobility and flexibility, as we have heard, if applied to such businesses, to the detriment of both employer and employee. Rigidity—I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used that word—is especially dangerous in a flat economy environment such as we have at the moment.
Small business planning requires agility and flexibility when creating new jobs. As we know, business circumstances will change, often on a month-to-month basis, given the natural volatility around budgeting, forecasting revenues, forecasting bookings and indeed anticipating demand. When we talk about
“the reasonableness of entering into a limited-term contract”,
we simply cannot afford to ignore the early-stage development of these companies and watch them avoid risk-taking.
The Member’s explanatory statement to Amendment 19A quite rightly points to
“unforeseeable changes in business conditions”,
and that is especially relevant to small businesses. As I know through bitter experience, as both an employer and an investor, there is often a huge delta between entrepreneurs’ forecasts and the actual outcomes. This is about not just seasonality, events or the weather but unpredictable customer demand.
We should therefore not handicap entrepreneurial risk-taking, which this economy so desperately needs to encourage, and specifically the creation of new jobs, by applying such blanket restrictions on limited-term employment contracts. We need a more nuanced approach, as this amendment suggests, and I ask the Government to give it serious consideration.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends on our Front Bench. I have a number of concerns about the guaranteed-hours provisions in the Bill, one of them being that they are drafted almost wholly from the perspective of workers and pay little heed to the needs of employers. I do not believe that is a good way to create employment law to underpin a healthy economy.
On our first day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, who is not in his place today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, both spoke about the work of the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts. I was grateful to them for being pointed in that direction. I have a great deal of time for the work of the Low Pay Commission, which is always balanced and very careful, so I went back and looked at the 2018 report. Unsurprisingly, I found that it does not provide the copper-bottomed support for the Bill that noble Lords opposite have claimed—I should also say that the employment bodies represented on the Low Pay Commission have told us that as well.
The Low Pay Commission did indeed recommend that workers should be offered guaranteed-hours contracts, but, importantly, it also recognised that there would be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the employer to have to do that. There is not a trace of that in the Bill. The Low Pay Commission was clear that the Bill should set out specific circumstances in which the employer would not have to offer guaranteed hours. The commission cited with approval some equivalent legislation which was at that stage going through the Irish parliament, which provided, among other things, that adverse changes in the employer’s business or the existence of temporary factors would allow employers not to offer guaranteed hours.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I believe that Amendment 19A is eminently reasonable in that context. It does not give an employer carte blanche to ignore guaranteed hours but allows for some genuine business circumstances to be taken into account by the employer when looking at whether guaranteed-hours contracts should be offered.
At the end of the day, if we do not have successful businesses, there will not be any jobs on any kind of contract available. As I said on our first day in Committee, I am particularly concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about small and micro-businesses, which really need to be allowed the flexibility if we are to protect the work opportunities of around half the private sector workforce.
Even if those small and micro-businesses survive the incredible bureaucracy associated with these guaranteed hours, they will potentially not survive the substantive impact of the hours if they are required in all circumstances to offer guaranteed-hours contracts. Of course, this is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, the largest user of zero-hours contracts; my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about the problems in that sector. There are also very large numbers of small and micro-businesses in that sector.
Recognising some very limited flexibility, my noble friend’s Amendment 19A is actually very modest. It would go some way towards making this new requirement to offer guaranteed hours work in the context of businesses that have to face difficult circumstances, and at the moment the Bill pays no attention to that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends. I am just thinking of my career. I have had quite a conventional career in many ways, but I have also had many extra roles, particularly when I was a student—I am conscious that we will come to Amendment 19B separately later. It is important to reinforce the challenges in starting up or expanding a particular business. It is well said that a coffee shop will know within the first week whether it will succeed. You could argue that there are different factors, but within the first month a business will certainly know whether the footfall and the sale per customer justify the number of people it is employing and adapt accordingly.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned, there is also this extended element about things such as holidays. It may surprise your Lordships to know quite how many jobs are, frankly, based on whether it rains and people cancelling going out to do different things. That is one of the reasons why, in particular but not exclusively, many hotel chains have started having a price differential: basically, you get a better deal if you book up front, but you cannot cancel or get your money back. Indeed, it is why even more restaurants are, effectively, starting to pre-charge an amount of money that is expected so that people do not cancel. Having lived in touch of the coast for most of my life, I can assure your Lordships that the fluctuation in how many people actually turn up to a resort for the day in a town is real, and what that means for temporary jobs.
That is why I think my noble friend Lord Hunt has found a good way of trying to help the Government to consider some of the everyday decisions that employers have to make as to whether they open up in the first place, whether they try to expand, and whether they try to get the growth. If I go further on to Clause 20, at the same time that the Government are trying to encourage businesses to go into artificial intelligence and see all that can be embraced in that regard, they need to bear in mind that businesses will not invest in such technologies if they are concerned that the other costs will be so detrimental to them.
We keep having this Catch-22 situation: if the Government want growth, they need to recognise the success where employers have been given the chance to scope and to be flexible, although I understand entirely the Government’s intent that the employer should be reasonable with the people that they take on. It is for these reasons—and I will speak more in the next group—that I believe that the Government should seriously consider how they operationalise this. We keep hearing about more and more consultations. We have heard people from the British Retail Consortium, from retailers and from hospitality saying that these are the real issues. We are almost doing their consultation for them by putting forward these amendments, so I hope that the Minister will look on them carefully in his consideration.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall make four short points on these amendments, all of which I oppose. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employers would get locked into guaranteed hours. I remind him that all contracts of employment may be varied by mutual agreement or, if not, they can be terminated and there can be re-engagement on fresh terms.
Secondly, the noble Lord mentioned the industrial reality. The industrial reality of zero-hours contracts is a complete disparity of power: 80% of those on zero-hours contracts would prefer a permanent contract, but those on zero-hours contracts are completely at the mercy of the employer. They do not know how many hours they are going to work tomorrow, let alone next week, and they do not know how much income they will make at the end of any week. Therefore, a worker on a zero-hours contract does not want an argument, to fall out or have a disagreement with the employer. That is a vital component of the legislation my noble friend proposes.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not welcome me back as well, but I am coming to terms with that disappointment. To briefly refer back to the first group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some comments about the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and had I not had to leave before we got to that group, I fear I was going to subject the Minister to a somewhat satirical analysis of that particular amendment—but, frankly, the letter did a much better job than anything I could have done.
I ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to take that letter and that response and discuss it with 10 people responsible for HR in businesses of different sizes to ask them what they think of it, then perhaps they could tell us what the result of those discussions were. I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe: it is beyond parody that that algorithm should lead to that sort of calculation that any company is expected to make. There has to be a simpler way of getting the same result; that is what we should be thinking about.
I was somewhat intrigued by the degrouping strategy. We have amendments on guaranteed hours in the previous group, this group and the next, which is why I reserved the small comments I have to just this group. I have tried to pick through the bones of what we heard. There are some bones, and I should like the Government to comment on them.
I point to the use of language by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. On one side they are talking about flexibility and on his side they are talking about evasion and escape. Thereby hangs the problem of the debate that we might be having overall in your Lordships’ Committee. When we are talking about escape and flexibility, we are not using the same language. We have to try to find a way to bridge that divide in culture that we are dealing with. If we were doing conflict resolution, that would be the starting point.
Where I do agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is that we should not be looking to create a two-tier situation. We have to create a system that works for employers across the board. However, the noble Lord’s point was that it would extract a huge number of people from the benefits of the Bill were we to exclude. We have to work hard to ensure that the micro-businesses are not disadvantaged by what we are seeking to do, rather than exempt them from it. That is our view from these Benches.
Back to those bones: I look to the Minister to recognise that there are businesses that have lumpy—perhaps I should say fluctuating—demand. Some of these businesses fluctuate predictably—they are cyclic. Christmas comes at the same time every year, so we always have roughly the same amount of bulge. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out, for others that lumpiness can come with the weather. I want the Minister to recognise that these businesses exist and then for us to explain that a number of issues have already come up around how to manage a workforce fairly while being economically sensible to the business within this lumpiness and fluctuation. We had groups on the first day in Committee, we have these groups, and we will have more.
I would like to sit down with the Minister to understand how the Government envision the Bill allowing businesses that know that they will have lumpy, fluctuating demand to manage a workforce. What will be the fair approach, in the Government’s view, and the economic approach, in businesses’ view, to ensure that there is a win-win? This should not be seen as an evasion or a flexibility but as an opportunity to bring things together and make them better for business and employees, because the two are completely linked in this. We have to cross that divide and sit down with the Government, to work out how flexibility comes into this and how a business will manage this process properly, while delivering the fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put forward.
Can those of us who are interested sit down with the Minister in a seminar where she explains how, if the Bill goes through as it is, businesses with lumpy and fluctuating demand, whether seasonable or variable, can manage that going forward?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 to Clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, that the detailed analysis of the algorithms by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, was presented only on the basis of a request for a detailed analysis of where those arguments came from. There was a much simpler version, which my noble friend gave in his verbal response, so there is more than one version of that challenge.
Amendment 20 seeks to allow employers to propose changes to permanent contracts issued after a guaranteed-hours offer within six months of acceptance, as long as there is a genuine material need in business operations. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not required. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, the zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prevent employers offering their workers variations to their contracts following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer as long as the variation does not amount to subjecting the worker to a detriment. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Londesborough, the noble Baroness Noakes, and other noble Lords, that the Bill does have the flexibility that should reassure businesses that the zero-hours provisions can be changed. As we debated previously, when talking about zero-hours contracts in the context of, for example, individuals such as students or those with caring responsibilities, those who are offered zero-hours contracts will be able to turn the offer down and remain on their current contract.
Going back to Amendment 20, employers will still be able to propose and make changes to their workers’ contracts after they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, including in the sectors such as hospitality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, refers. This can be done following the usual process of negotiation and agreement between employers and workers. It would be subject to the terms of the workers’ contracts as well as existing and new legislation, such as the provisions on fire and rehire. Adding a provision stating that employers can propose variations—something that they will already be able to do—while considering only a limited number of matters may risk creating legal confusion. It may, for example, inappropriately suggest that variations can be proposed only in these circumstances or suggest that other provisions of legislation that do not include similar wording restrict employers’ ability to propose variations of contracts when this is not the case.
Amendment 21 seeks to make provisions that employers may still make redundancies where these are based on genuine business needs and not linked principally to a worker’s right to guaranteed hours. I am again pleased to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary. The zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prohibit dismissals by means of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. There are some restrictions on selecting an employee for dismissal by redundancy because they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, but this is not what the amendment seeks to address.
The Bill otherwise creates protection only against detriments and makes dismissals automatically unfair in very limited scenarios—including, for instance, where the principal reason for the dismissal is an employee accepting or rejecting a guaranteed-hours offer. If an employer wished to make an employee redundant, they would be required to follow the required processes in line with the terms of the employee’s contract and with employment law relating to individual or collective redundancies, to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This amendment would not substantially change the effect of the provisions, as the zero-hours measures in the Bill do not prohibit dismissal by reason of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. But it could create unhelpful doubt as to how the legislation on redundancy already operates.
Amendment 19A seeks to list in the Bill a number of factors and circumstances that would need to be considered when determining whether it was reasonable for an employer to give a worker a limited-term contract. I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Under the guaranteed-hours provisions, it is reasonable for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract would terminate after that task has been performed—for example, waiting at tables at a wedding—or the worker is needed only until an event occurs or fails to occur, after which the contract would terminate. This could include a worker covering another worker who is on sick leave or a worker needed only for some other kind of temporary need that would be specified in regulations, the contract expiring in line with the end of that temporary need.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for her partial response, but will she reveal the draft of those regulations while we still have an opportunity to debate them? Secondly, I think she was going to talk about consultation and so I ask what question that consultation will be asking.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.
We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.
I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that I would really appreciate the opportunity to look at how this Bill deals with lumpy demand— not only predictably lumpy but randomly lumpy. I ask the Clerk at the Table to transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a request to tell us how the Bill will affect the House’s employment practices, because we are a great generator of lumpy demand, not least on the Public Bill Office. I would really like that immediate understanding of how the Bill affects a substantial organisation, but one with a very unpredictable set of demands such as the Houses of Parliament.
This lumpiness is a characteristic of, say, the NHS, which may suddenly get a demand and have to do things. Suddenly something emerges and the pattern of working has to change. Will the Bill fix those longer hours so that they become set and cannot be rowed back from when the lump disappears? A good understanding, before we reach Report, of how the Bill will work in practice and interact with a range of real businesses would be really valuable, and I hope the Minister can offer it to us.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I had already offered to have further discussions, but I take the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were looking for the draft regulations. I do not think I need to remind the Committee of my declaration of interests; at Second Reading, I reminded the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that, last week, City AM—a newspaper circulated widely through the City—said that the Bill is the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. Many more lawyers will be needed to wade through the complexities of the Bill.
In particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the Government’s power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation that gives Ministers the power, after consultation, to do whatever they wish whenever they wish to do it. We are going to have this time and again in this series of debates. Surely it is right that, if the Government are taking the power to introduce detail—in particular by amending primary legislation—we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to give that power to Ministers.
Lord Fox (LD)
I do not know whether I am allowed to intervene on this, but I wonder whether the noble Lord heard the Minister say that the Government are consulting on draft regulations. Perhaps he might ask the Minister to share those draft regulations with us during the process of consultation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I completely agree and am very grateful to the noble Lord, who introduced the whole concept of “lumpy”. As well as “lumpy”, we are all talking about “flexible” and he also said “fluctuating”.
This has been a very helpful debate. I particularly enjoyed my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea describing the history of the introduction of the minimum wage and how it gave rise to zero-hours contracts in the first place. It is a reminder that we have to be careful every time we take a key step down the road to creating more employment law, as we have to be mindful of the consequences.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that we have to keep thinking of the start-ups and scale-ups, and the effect that this legislation will have on them. It was good that my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us of the truth behind the Low Pay Commission 2018 Report that small and micro-businesses, as she put it to the Committee, need flexibility. My noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us that one’s job quite often depends on whether it is raining, as she put it. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote that, in England, everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. It is a fact that demand often fluctuates according to the weather and this was a good reminder of that.
I welcome the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. His four points were key; I accept them and will carefully ponder each one—particularly his point about escape routes. Our purpose—mine and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom—is to ensure that we do not need escape routes, because we will get a law that fits the way in which the economy can grow and be more competitive. That is what it is all about. It is not about short-term contracts being the answer here and another form of contract being the answer there. Most employers want stability so that they can look forward with confidence.
How right the noble Lord was to remind us of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must surely be a worry in his mind as to the effect this onerous Bill will have on those small and medium-sized enterprises looking to grow and expand that do not have an HR department that can set out for them exactly the way ahead through all the bureaucratic routes they have to follow. They want to be able to grow and expand without carefully checking which rulebook applies. They, of course, always allow bereavement leave. All the employers I have known, when there was a tragedy in a member of their workforce’s family—I am not talking about just my clients but across the whole sector—did, of course, allow people time off. Therefore, we should not be establishing rigidity.
This is where I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we do not want a two-tier system. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on our previous Committee day, there are various tiers already in the tax system. The exemption I sought in Amendment 21 surely does not in any way undermine the rights of workers but gives the Bill the flexibility it needs to succeed in practice. We have heard in this debate and from businesses across the country that a rigid one-way system for guaranteed hours simply does not reflect the way in which large parts of our economy function. Retail, hospitality, tourism, logistics, seasonal industries—all rely on flexible staffing, and they operate in environments that can shift rapidly, sometimes overnight.
I plead again with the Minister that these amendments provide a narrow, principled route for employers to propose changes: not to walk away from commitments but to respond when there is a genuine and material change in business operations. No retaliation, no loopholes, just a basic safeguard to ensure that businesses are not locked into obligations that are no longer viable.
Let us be honest, if employers are not able to make changes in response to real pressures—a drop in demand, a loss of control, over-capacity—they are far less likely to offer guaranteed hours in the first place. That is not speculation; it is what we are hearing from so many of those making representations about the Bill at the present time. The result is clear: fewer jobs offered, fewer guaranteed hours and fewer opportunities, especially for the very people who rely on flexible and part-time work. That means young people, students—who we will come to in a moment—workers with disabilities, carers and, of course, those trying to get their foot on the ladder.
Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sharpe that it would be helpful to sit down with the Minister and her colleagues to see if we can find a way through. Otherwise, we shall have to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(13) The duty to offer guaranteed hours under Section 27BA(1) does not apply to workers who are full-time students.”Member's explanatory statement
This subsection provides that the duty to offer a guaranteed hours arrangement under Section 27BA(1) does not apply to workers who are full-time students.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated, we now return to students and the guaranteed-hours exemption for full-time students. Amendment 19B is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
At Second Reading, I heard the Government’s intention, as part of their growth agenda, to get young people back to work who are not in education, employment or training—referred to as NEETs. Retailers provide flexible and part-time jobs tailor-made for people coming off benefits and the nearly 1 million 16 to 24 year-old NEETs. However, the evidence available clearly shows that the guaranteed-hours reforms, as currently drafted, fail to realise the realities of student employment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the name of my noble friend. I am an employer, and I have declared my interest in the register. I founded and was the executive director of a think tank for over the best part of a quarter of a century, and now I am research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. As your Lordships know, many universities have changed their timetables. Some are taking much shorter summer breaks, some have started working more flexibly and many work remotely for certain classes. Postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, get a foothold in the world of work and understand what happens there. They learn disciplines. They learn the discipline of work, timetabling and deadlines. But we have to be flexible. Terms can be busy. There can be things such as essay crises, or a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in, and of course we will accommodate that.
We have devised a good work programme. I am speaking only to give the Committee an example of the damage this will do, particularly to the students. We devise a work programme so they can work remotely and do research when they have free time. They want to earn money, and both parties are flexible. I, particularly as a former academic, recognise that their work in the university, their teaching and their essays come first. This suits all parties. We have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees, stayed three or four years and then gone on to do a professional training course, perhaps in law or accountancy. They, too, want to come back and continue with the work that they have brought to a high level, and they will be paid accordingly. There is no exploitation in this market; rather it is mutual gain.
It is a great pleasure for me to see young people. I have had students from inner London universities whose family had no habit of third-level or even second-level education, who came from families from abroad, who used to ask for time off during their time to take their granny to the hospital in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities, and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result. Some of the work placements are organised directly with the university, and for others students write in themselves. I beg the Government to listen to this amendment and take heed, because the Bill will do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn and keep afloat when they are paying for their studies.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this debate takes me back to my own student days and the work that I did as a student. It was not very glamorous, I have to say. I did the overnight shift shelf-stacking at Gateway, which set me up, obviously, to be a Peer in your Lordships’ House. I also did a stint at McDonald’s. That was valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the important opportunity to meet different sorts of people.
I believe that this Government are fair-minded and decent in the way they wish to protect the interests of working families who want the certainty of being able to put food on the table and earn a decent wage. I think we all believe that that is very important as an imperative. However, the mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question, “What problem is this solving?” Another mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of a Bill where the effect of the Bill will be disadvantageous to a group. I think that this is one such example and that the very important points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral should be taken on board by the Government.
Remember that this is a student generation that has lived through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career not being able to socialise in an office or a factory or out on site but at their kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who, broadly speaking, are not wicked and rapacious but want good people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and individuals and workers, will not take a risk with this legislation. This goes through the whole of this legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk-averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I think Ministers should give that consideration.
The reason that this is a good amendment is that it recognises that we have a very complex, fast-moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgments about their work, employment, training, skills, knowledge and experience that I did not take 30 years ago and my parents certainly did not take, as you were generally in the same job for the whole of your working life, but—I would not use the word “promiscuous” necessarily, but I cannot think of a better word—younger people now are a bit more promiscuous in the decisions they take, and therefore they value that ability to enter into a flexible contract. In my time, I would not have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone aged, say, 35 or 40 who had a family and had to provide for them, but I think my noble friends have made a good point that this amendment would allow the Government to carve out this particular group. I do not think there is anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that definitively makes the case for keeping students in this group, and for that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to improve the Bill. It recognises the real-life consequences and issues that may arise from the Bill: in other words, fewer young people having the opportunity to work and fewer long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s very good amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I may also go down memory lane about aspects of employment—it was a variety of activities. Where I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Hunt, who moved the amendment, is that I expect the Minister will simply say that students are not required to accept a guaranteed-hours contract. She is absolutely right about that. However, if I were in a situation as a student getting a guaranteed-hours contract, happy days. I would lap them up wherever I could. I am trying to think back to my time doing my PhD. I think I worked for the university in two different jobs. I also managed to use some of my holiday to get extra work. It was a mixture of things, and we are seeing this trend increase. With the cost of living challenge that people across the country face, we are seeing a significant increase in students starting to take on quite long working hours, which is somewhat detrimental to their learning progress.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate on the subject of those who may be made exempt from the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. First off, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is quite right that the Government have a detailed plan to get young people into work and training. Of course, we want to provide new opportunities for all young people, and we are determined to do that.
Amendment 19B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to take workers who are full-time students out of the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government appreciate that zero-hours contracts or those sorts of arrangements can work well for many full-time students, who desire the flexibility that they provide. We have heard that from around the Chamber this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about term-time or seasonal work, but I urge him to look back through the previous debates we have had and the comments I have made, because there are a variety of ways in which employers can offer that flexibility of contract and the limited-terms contracts that could address those term-time only or seasonal work issues. I am not persuaded of his argument in that regard.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, that there are workers who nevertheless are full-time students, and they can still experience that one-sided flexibility, similarly to the workers who are studying part-time. It seems disproportionate to exclude workers from the scope of that right simply on the basis that they are enrolled in full-time studies. Full-time students may value guaranteed hours to help them manage their job around their studies or arrange their childcare in the same way as those in full-time work.
I think there is an assumption in this debate that we are talking only about a particular age group of people and that it is a group of young people who are earning some extra beer money. This is far from the case. Many full-time students are mature students with family or other caring responsibilities, or even simply with rental or mortgage commitments. For those people, guaranteed hours can be a financial lifeline. According to a 2024 TUC poll, the majority—80% of students on zero-hours contracts—also reported that they had experienced difficulties managing study and education alongside their work. They certainly, in this generation, try to manage both of those a lot more than they did in my generation, and it is now much more expected that young people will work alongside their study. Many of those students want the opportunity to have regular hours to avoid the burden of incurring long-term student debt, which they would otherwise take into their ongoing working life. As we have said, it is entirely up to the student to say what is right for them, but there are very good reasons why the guaranteed hours should apply to all people and we should not make an exemption for students.
However, as we noted, flexibility for workers is important and the Government are not seeking to change that, where workers value that flexibility and have some benefit from a zero-hours contract. As I say, that is why workers who are full-time students and want to retain their zero-hours contracts or arrangements will be able to do so by rejecting the guaranteed-hours offer. They can accept it or reject it.
However, it is the Government’s view that they should be able to choose, based on their individual circumstances, whether to accept a guaranteed-hours offer, rather than being denied that right, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks, purely on the basis of the fact that they are studying. I hope the noble Lord will look again at his amendment. I feel as if it is penalising young people and students in a way that feels quite unreasonable in the circumstances where everybody else is entitled to this right. Therefore, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a valuable debate; I agree with the Minister. Indeed, I welcomed her admission that zero-hours contracts work very well for students and are valued by them. I was interested in the TUC survey. All the surveys I have seen so far tell this Committee that full-time students do not want to lose zero-hours contracts.
It may be that the Minister will say, “Why is this amendment necessary, because they will not request full-time employment?” However, under the Bill, the employer has to work out how the business will be able to offer someone on a zero-hours contract full-time employment as and when they request it. It comes later, of course, when we are moving amendments, that we can say that it should not be the duty of the employer to give the opportunity of full-time employment; it should be the right to request full-time employment. What I think we are arguing about is whether all employers will have to go through the process in advance of any request being received. Under this legislation, they have to work out how they will be able to respond positively to an offer.
My noble friend Lady Lawlor shared the real-life experience and the way in which various students have taken advantage of these contracts. But what if they are not going to be offered them and given the opportunity of working as and when, in the flexible, lumpy way they want to organise their studies, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, pointed out? I thank him for going down memory lane; it was a fascinating glimpse of life as a stacker. I suppose all of us will remember what we did as students. I volunteered. I crossed Whiteladies Road in Bristol and offered my services to the BBC. The BBC took me on as a freelance newsreader.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Yes. I had to turn up at 5 am and then read the news.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am excited by the noble Lord’s anecdote, as I was by other noble Lords’ anecdotes, but would he perhaps concede that that was several years ago and the employment market, and indeed the student body, might have changed somewhat since then?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Sadly, yes. I was on a student grant and they were abolished, so I cannot draw too many analogies. My noble friend enticed me down memory lane.
I just wanted to see what the adverse effect of this amendment might be if we were to exclude full-time students. My noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly reminded us that there is such an exemption in other legislation, such as that around universal credit. Therefore, the Minister will not be blazing a new trail; she will merely be responding to the very fact that, under legislation, full-time students do not necessarily fit into the pattern laid down by the Bill.
I am sure we will return to this. In the meantime, we can hardly wait for this meeting with the Minister, in which she will take us through the way this will all operate to cover flexible and lumpy employment. While reserving the right to return to the issue on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I hope this amendment will come under the “lumpiness seminar” we have been promised. It is about what “reasonable notice” means in the Government’s intentions and how this will work in practice.
This again comes back to my request to the clerk. How did this work in the case of Parliament being recalled to deal with the Government’s rescue of the steelworks? How would it work in connection with the NHS’s response to a train crash in its neighbourhood? What about the need to change working patterns suddenly and quickly and for the workforce to be flexible? Although I have kept this amendment simple, I would like to reflect in our meeting on the equivalent provisions in Schedule A1, which deal with agency workers. How is this all going to work in practice?
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29 and support my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 27. My amendment probes the Government’s intended meaning for the phrase “reasonably believed”, which relates to short-notice cancellation of shifts. This phrase may seem innocuous at first glance, but it carries considerable weight in determining whether workers—particularly those in insecure or temporary arrangements—are entitled to compensation when a shift is cancelled, shortened or otherwise fails to materialise. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context, we risk leaving both worker and employer in an uncertain and potentially contentious position. A test that lacks definition can quickly become a source of dispute rather than a resolution.
To be clear, my intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language on the Government, but rather to seek clarity on how this standard is to be understood and applied. For example, it is not enough for an employee to assert that they are expecting a shift to proceed even when the hirer has not provided written confirmation. What factors should we consider in assessing what is reasonable? Should they include previous patterns of communication, the urgency of the situation or a reliance on verbal assurances? Clarity is not a luxury that employment law has—it is a necessity. Vague thresholds serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government’s use of this term is underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 22, which would allow the duty to provide reasonable notice not to apply in certain cases, and Amendment 24, which would do likewise for the duty to provide compensation under new Section 27BP(1). The Bill’s approach is likely to damage the effective working of the labour market, for which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of a business, which needs a workforce, and those of a workforce, which depends on a business succeeding to provide work and income for the future.
If a Bill does not account for exceptional circumstances, it becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In the case of this Bill, in providing for exceptions to guaranteed-hours, reasonable notice and compensation obligations, it should take account of the difficulties businesses have to navigate to keep afloat and continue to make a success of things, as well as contribute to the whole economy and the country’s overall welfare, provide jobs for the labour market, and offer opportunities for people to work, earn and, sometimes, get their first job on the jobs ladder.
We understand that businesses have both quiet periods and busy periods—such as hospitality events—where they need extra hands. A business must allow for periods of extra business as a matter of course—some of these are predictable, others not. Businesses know there are times when cover is needed with no notice, such as when a team member is off sick or at a funeral, but by the same token they need to be able to avoid adding to their problems and costs when they are a victim of circumstances that unexpectedly change. Yet the Bill requires the employer to give notice of changes and make provision for compensation if a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened without sufficient notice.
These amendments simply ask that a Government can make regulations so that the duties under new Sections 27BI and 27BJ need not apply. That would give power to a responsible Government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the costs and time involved in the tribunal process and potential compensation payments in cases where, due to unlikely and unforeseen circumstances, the guaranteed-hours work was not available at short notice.
We have already heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances with which they contend. Given the burden that the business sector will face under the guaranteed-hours clause, a Government will have few tools at their disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation—one that might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events—to exempt the reasonable notice required for changes or cancellations that have an impact on the business, and the compensation obligation, which will add unfair costs to a business.
I will take three sectors—each very different—to illustrate a potential example. The first is the retail sector, where extra help is needed to deal with a delivery and prepare it for the shelves overnight. What if the delivery van does not arrive, or the motorway is closed due to an accident or roadworks? The business has little or no notice of the failure, yet it will lose custom and income on lost sales. None the less, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for it to give less than what, under the measure, will be reasonable notice, or to protect it from paying compensation.
In the care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents needing extra support, or someone due to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies or the resident falls ill, has a heart attack and must go to hospital right away? There is no notice of that, and the extra work does not materialise. The care home will lose income on its empty room and overhead, yet payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from—the local authority, the care recipient, or the estate if it is a death? What will the care home do to tide over an income shortfall when having to pay its suppliers for everything from food and cooking to linen, room cleaning and care?
The CEO of the Carers Trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero-hours contracts because of a “lack of funding” from local authorities. She says:
“If zero-hours contracts are banned”—
or, I would add, made more difficult or costly—
“social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings”.
The CEO of the National Care Forum says that
“these measures must be accompanied by the financial and wider support necessary for providers to implement them, as well as interim measures to boost care worker pay”.
These changes must be reflected in its funding so that it can continue to do its vital work. So are the Government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs that will be incurred if these clauses go through unamended?
Another example would be a conference organiser where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to repair it instantly, nothing can be fixed because the failure lies elsewhere: a cyberattack or an energy blackout. This can happen overnight. The business loses its data, it loses customers, who are unable to pay an entry price, and it loses an overhead. Depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal, it may lose so badly that, ultimately, if the problem recurs, it may have to curtail operations and overheads. Without the amendments allowing the Government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be higher costs that may ultimately lead to the failure of the business.
There are enough uncertainties and costs for employers without making these worse, but the obligations of the Bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. Who will pay these extra costs? We know that this Government have been in the habit of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs in respect of workers in the public sector but not for businesses or charitable trusts, or indeed independent schools in the case of imposing VAT. What about the care homes taking local authority work? What about the costs of the uncertainties of the Bill itself? Although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed pay for the lost shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what “short notice” is supposed to mean and what is meant by “qualifying shift”. We have to wait for regulations.
There are good reasons for these amendments. If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish, and to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes of unexpected problems preventing expected workloads without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the Government to accept them and for the regulations to respect the spirit in which they have been made.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 28, which replaces the test of reasonable belief with that of formal confirmation. I mentioned earlier the work done by the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts when it reported in 2018. It also examined the issue of compensation for short-notice cancellation of shifts. It emphasised in its report that there would need to be fairly rigorous record-keeping. It said that both employers and employees would need
“proof a shift had been offered”.
That speaks to the content of Amendment 28. It does not seem to me to be sensible to have something that rests solely on reasonable belief, because that is impossible to prove and would result in difficult questions being put to an employment tribunal. Although I am obviously not in favour of imposing bureaucratic requirements on employers, this is one area where the legislation should point towards there being some formality of record-keeping so that there can be no dispute about whether shifts have been offered or cancelled.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in the main, this is a reasonable debate—or, rather, a debate about “reasonable”. We have yet to hear the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on Amendments 22 and 24, which sit outside the theme of the other amendments in this group, which I expect to be about Henry VIII powers. We shall see.
My noble friend Lord Goddard proposed his amendment, and I am here to speak to my Amendment 27. My amendment is about the definition of “reasonable notice”, and what that means. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes a different time for reasonable notice in his Amendment 21A. Either way, this is an opportunity for the Minister to walk us through what the Government are thinking around reasonable notice.
My noble friend set out a probing amendment to ask about “reasonably believed”, and in Amendment 28 the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, essentially seeks to replace that. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is an official spokesperson for the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I can see many reasons for adopting something that is clear—albeit bureaucratic. I never thought that I would hear the noble Baroness speak to bureaucracy. However, somehow being able to show that belief is backed up by documentation may well prove to be essential in the good managing of workers’ relationships.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group with his Amendment 21A. I could not agree with him more that flexibility is a key part of an efficient economy. That deserves to be written in stone. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lady Noakes for their support for various amendments in this group and to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his positive comments.
I shall speak to Amendments 22, 24 and 28 in my name. There are many circumstances in which an employer has no choice but to make a request or cancel a shift on short notice—my noble friend Lady Lawlor gave us some very useful examples of that. But to go on a bit, for example, if a colleague calls in sick, which is something that is likely to increase in frequency with changes to statutory sick pay governed in other areas of this Bill, or if events beyond the employer’s control intervene, such as local flooding or public disturbances, payment for unworked cancelled shifts becomes an additional financial burden at precisely the time when a business is already experiencing a downturn. It is not simply about inconvenience; it is actually about viability.
To give another particular example, we have heard from the hospitality industry that the proposed rights around notice and cancellation of shifts could severely undermine existing staffing practices. For instance, in the case of pubs, which as we know are under pressure anyway, those with outdoor garden spaces in particular operate in a highly unpredictable environment. One representative of the sector made it very clear to us when he said:
“The new right to notice of shift allocation and cancellation could undermine a pub’s ability to offer voluntary overtime”.
During the course of the discussion, the examples were magnified to some extent—and to some extent the example that I am about to give is the flipside of the one that my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted with regard to restaurants in a previous group, and the fact that they are pre-charging for tables. The representative of the industry pointed out to us that in many cases, for example, offering food in a pub Monday to Wednesday is a highly marginal business, and they often let their staff go early, and so on. He is of the opinion that, as a result of the Bill, much of that work will simply disappear; they will not bother to open, because it will be too complicated to administer. Not the least of it is that it is not just the administration but the costs of offering the compensation that is governed by this clause. That would obviously not be very good for consumer choice, plus of course there are implications for tax receipts and a whole host of other areas as well.
In practice, these businesses rely heavily on flexibility, which includes voluntary shift swaps and short-notice availability. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, if the weather turns—and in Britain, let us be honest, that is not a small variable—a pub expecting a busy day may suddenly find itself very overstaffed. Under the Bill, cancelling those shifts could result in mandatory compensation.
I turn to Amendment 24. Another flaw identified in the Bill is that it presumes that, in every instance, a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift entitles the employee to compensation. This rigidity, however, does not account for the unforeseen events which, as noble Lords across the House will know, are a common occurrence throughout the working world. We have heard many examples of those. The assumption that the employer is always somehow at fault does not reflect the realities of working life. Our amendment therefore seeks to clarify and incorporate a degree of flexibility into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, we are proposing that the conditions that govern this entitlement to compensation should be subject to regulation in this case. There is a strong case to be made for this exception to our general principled dislike of the amount of regulation on which the Bill relies. As defined by the Secretary of State, this could be nuanced to ensure greater parity in the employer/employee relationship.
It is vital that we remember throughout these debates that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will profoundly affect workers and employers across the country. I am concerned that, in certain elements of this Bill, an ideological assumption is made about the relationship between the worker and the employer, which leads to absolute positions—another point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised in a previous group. We all have a duty to ensure that the Bill meets the practical demands of the real workplace and does not just speak to such assumptions. This amendment would balance the relationship between the employer and the employee and would make sure that those who provide the work are protected, alongside those who undertake it. There is an essential symbiosis that needs to be maintained in order for us to have a thriving economy, with good jobs available for workers. We cannot fall prey to inflexible, absolute stances that upset this relationship. Our amendment seeks to correct this mistake in the text of the Bill.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes in particular for her support for Amendment 28, because she raised unarguable points. The reasonable belief test outlined in the Bill raises several concerns. One of the most substantial is that the term “reasonable” is incredibly broad and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both workers and employers. As noble Lords across the House will know, this part of the Bill is designed to make working entitlements clearer and provide greater clarity and certainty to workers about the shifts they are working and the sort of income they can therefore expect to receive. However, the text in its current form is wide open to a massive range of interpretations and fails to provide clarity or protection for either workers or employers. How is either party to know what constitutes a reasonable expectation? Redefining this element of the Bill so that a formal confirmation of a shift is required for entitlement to compensation will provide clarity for both parties and will create a mutual responsibility between the worker and the employer to make expectations and duties clear.
It is my understanding that the Government intend this section of the Bill to place an obligation on the employer to clearly communicate shift assignments to workers in order to avoid misunderstanding. We agree that this should be the case, although the current text of the Bill uses language that is far too vague. If the Government want to promote the clear communication of shift assignments, surely providing for a formal commitment of work, rather than the belief of being needed, is the way to make sure that that obligation is met. Our proposal of a formal confirmation requirement would mean that both employer and employee know where they stand and what is expected of them and would address the shortcoming in the text as it stands.
I will say just a few brief words on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Forty-eight hours seems to us a perfectly reasonable notice period regarding the time before a shift is due to start. A survey from the Association of Convenience Stores found that 90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice. Unless a reasonable notice period is reflected in the new requirements, it is likely to lead to a cautious approach to staffing by many hospitality and retail businesses. This would mean restricting operating hours and/or staff numbers during periods of uncertain footfall, rather than offering shifts that may ultimately be surplus to operational needs on the day, thus incurring compensation costs for late cancellations.
Moreover, there is a notable asymmetry in the Bill as drafted, because there are no reciprocal requirements for employees to provide notice when they are unable to work at a scheduled shift. That gap will have significant implications. One of the biggest challenges for employers, particularly in retail, is managing last-minute cancellations by employees due to illness, childcare needs or other issues. When employers must find cover at short notice, how are they to meet the same reasonable notice requirements that they themselves are held to?
We need common sense in this legislation, so I urge the Government to accept my and other amendments, or to be honest about why they will not.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I take this opportunity to refer to the letter I wrote regarding the algebraic formula. There are existing formulae in employment rights legislation—for instance, in relation to the calculation of the amount payable to an agency worker as calculated in Section 57ZH of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so this is not something new. We will, however, publish full and comprehensive guidance in due course, which I am sure many noble Lords will find fascinating.
This has been a very useful debate, and I am very grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. We have covered several areas in this debate related to the amendments tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 21A, is seeking to make changes to the period of notice deemed reasonable for cancellation of or change to a shift for agency workers. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in Amendment 22, is seeking to make changes to the right to reasonable notice of shifts for directly engaged workers. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard of Stockport, are seeking to make changes to the right to payment for short-notice shift cancellations, movements and curtailments in Amendments 24, 27, 28 and 29.
Before I address each of these amendments in turn, let me share some analysis that the Living Wage Foundation did in 2023. It suggested that 59% of workers whose hours vary from week to week, which includes zero-hours and low-hour workers, receive less than a week’s notice of shifts, with 13% receiving less than 24 hours’ notice. The vast majority of respondents—90%—stated that they do not receive full payment when their shifts are cancelled unexpectedly, 74% receive less than half, 51% receive less than a quarter and 26% receive no payment. Further analysis, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, suggests that approximately 33% of UK employers who use zero-hour contracts compensate workers for shifts that are cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, with 48% of employers responding that they do not.
I turn first to Amendment 21A. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says in his explanatory statement that this amendment
“seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation”,
which
“will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations”.
The noble Lord seeks to achieve this by providing that the period of what is presumed to be reasonable notice for agency workers must be no greater than 24 hours. This would mean that it would be presumed reasonable if an agency worker receives 24 hours’ notice, but unreasonable if they receive less, so only in those latter situations would the agency or hirer have to prove that the period of notice was still reasonable in the circumstances.
I am not clear how this amendment would achieve this. The amendment would be made to Clause 2, concerning rights to reasonable notice for directly engaged workers, and appears to prevent workers being given more than 24 hours’ notice of cancellation or change to a shift. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill provides for periods of notice “presumed reasonable” to be set in regulations for directly engaged workers and agency workers, as well as the factors that should be taken into consideration in individual cases.
Following consultation, it may be that the “presumed reasonable” periods of notice and the factors that should be taken into consideration will be different for agency workers and directly engaged workers. We intend to consult on what period is presumed reasonable, because it varies from case to case. Setting a period of reasonable notice in primary legislation would thus pre-empt consultation and not allow us to take into account stakeholders’ views.
Lord Fox (LD)
These are probing amendments; they are designed not for us to tell the Government what we think, but for them to tell us what they think. Simply knocking our argument down does not really achieve that objective. Secondly, as I predicted in a sense, the Government have set up a consultation process, but they have already ruled out the offer of 24 hours from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and disparaged 48 hours. What other things have they ruled out before the consultation has been completed?
Lord Leong (Lab)
To a certain extent, we are not ruling anything in or out. We are basically saying that we will be consulting with all stakeholders. I take the noble Lord’s point—yes, the amendment says that, and I am responding to the amendment by saying that we will be undertaking further consultation and bringing forward regulations in due course.
I believe the noble Lord wishes instead to provide that a right to short-notice payment will arise only where the worker has received formal confirmation that they will work the shift from their employer, or, in the case of agency workers, hirer or work-finding agency. The Government’s view is that it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short-notice payments arises only in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. While in many cases, a reasonable belief will arise only where the worker has received confirmation in writing from the employer that they will work the shift, different businesses have different practices when arranging shifts, and it would not be appropriate to adopt a universal, one-size-fits-all approach.
For example, when a worker agrees to work the shift after being contacted individually to work it, they would likely reasonably believe that their agreement corresponds to them being needed to work the shift, if it is standard practice that they will be needed to work despite additional confirmation not being provided. So, it is fair that the worker in this scenario should receive a payment if the shift is then cancelled, as they expected to work it and may have incurred costs preparing to do so. It would also be overly burdensome for the employers to have to provide confirmation where this would not otherwise be needed in order to be confident that they will have staff for that particular shift.
The Government believe that, in most cases, it will be clear to both the worker and the employer, or the agency worker and the agency or hirer, whether the worker was expected to work a shift. The Government will also publish guidance to help with interpretation. As a last resort, where disputes cannot be settled, employment tribunals will be able to determine whether a worker had a reasonable belief that they were needed to work a shift with a result that is fair. We wish to retain this flexibility to allow for the broad range of circumstances that may arise.
Lord Fox (LD)
I apologise for intervening again. That is a really helpful response, because it confirms my fears. The less specific the supporting documentation is around what is reasonable, the more likely it is that this is going to go to a tribunal in order to define what is reasonable. We all know that this will take a great deal of time and a lot of money, and it will leave uncertainty probably for years before such time as a case is heard. Do the Government accept that, by being more specific in the first place, they can avoid this greater, costly uncertainty?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am not sure about that. Basically, we do not want to be too prescriptive and define what reasonableness is, because it varies from case to case and company to company. There needs to be that flexibility there.
Amendment 29 is a probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which seeks to add a power into the Bill to make regulations setting out factors that determine whether a worker reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. The Government tabled an amendment during Commons Report stage to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where a person reasonably believes that they will work a shift that it is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result.
This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risk of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work. This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example if they organise shifts through a large WhatsApp group. In cases like this, we want to be clear that people should receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice only if they reasonably believed they would work the shift in the first place.
For example, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, if there is an established practice of “first come, first served”, and an individual says they will work a shift after they have seen that another individual has already done so, they should probably not expect to work that shift. Even where a shift is offered only to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short-notice payment. For example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance, and the worker accepted the shift only two hours before the shift, it seems less likely they should expect actually to work that shift.
These are the kind of scenarios the Government considered when making the amendment; however, there are other scenarios where issues about this may arise. The Government wish to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting out factors in regulations, given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. Instead, the Government consider it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate.
Before I conclude, I will answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about reasons outside of employers’ control. With better planning, employers need not cancel as many shifts, but it is not right that, when there is uncertainty, the entire financial risk rests with the workers. We really need to have a fair balance, and the Bill offers exemptions as a possibility for that. We will consult on that; however, any exemptions are likely to be narrow, as we do not believe that workers should take the whole financial hit.
I hope that I have been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurances on the Government’s wider commitment to consult with stakeholders and businesses. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Is the Minister really saying that the points that we were making are related only to employers’ bad planning? How on earth are they supposed to plan for natural disasters, floods and so on? Secondly, I apologise for using the wrong reference to the Bill, as the Minister helpfully pointed out. He also helpfully pointed out that much of the Bill is being written on the hoof, so I would be very grateful if he would commit to stop producing new iterations of the Bill, which are ever expanding.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord will be happy to hear that I will consult with everybody as widely as possible, including him. We can have further conversations to explain the purpose of the Bill and why we are doing it. We are not doing this in isolation. I believe that the Bill is pro-business and pro-worker, and we need to get that message across to him and other noble Lords.
Lord Fox (LD)
On a number of occasions, the Minister set out that the Government are consulting. What is the timetable for that consultation, and when can we expect the results from it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Although the noble Lord expects me to give him a specific timeframe, I cannot do so now. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
On the first day in Committee, we already discussed the implementation plan of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We then moved on to discuss the draft implementation plan, and the noble Baroness gave us a commitment. Can the the noble Lord, Lord Leong, update that commitment? By when will we see the draft implementation plan?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I want the Minister to explain something. He has refused to set the definite hours in which this needs to be done. He said that that would be prescriptive and that the tribunal will determine whether the matter is reasonable. Is it not quite odd to rely on the tribunal to execute what noble Lords are trying to suggest in their amendments? Should not the Bill itself include those hours? If you do not want to be prescriptive, you can say, “Up to 24 hours”, or, “Up to 48 hours”, which means that they do not have to go all that way—that is slightly less prescriptive. I am baffled that the Minister wants the tribunals to enter into these matters. He and I know that they take a long time and cost a lot of money. Why is he legislating to open a door in this area to tribunals, which everybody should try to avoid?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his analysis of my amendment. I certainly do not intend to press it today, but I very much look forward to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss lumpiness.
On the noble Lord’s preference for keeping “reasonable” broad, I can see the attractiveness of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, postponing employees’ work for the next day at zero notice but saying, “We’ll want you in the day afterwards so you can start the clean-up” would presumably be reasonable. At the same time, giving very little notice when it is obvious that more notice could have been given would obviously be unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals does not seem to be the right way of going about it.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is being made to bring the amended provision into line with other provisions in the Bill.
Lord Leong
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);(ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 3 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.
“(9) For the purposes of this Chapter, references to the movement of a shift (however expressed)—(a) are to any change to the time at which the shift is to start that is a change of more than a specified amount of time;(b) include—(i) where a shift is in two or more parts, a change of more than a specified amount of time to the time at which the second (or a subsequent) part is to start, and(ii) a division of a shift into two or more parts where the time between the parts is more than a specified amount of time,but only if the change or division (as the case may be) results in the shift ending later.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of the movement of a shift for the purposes of the provisions inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by clause 3 of the Bill so as to deal with changes to the start time of a part of a shift or the division of a shift into parts.
Lord Leong
“(6) The duty in subsection (2) is to be taken not to have applied if—(a) the employer pays to the worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the employer would have been required to make to the worker under section 27BP(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under subsection (1)(c), and(b) the payment is made on or before the day on which the payment under section 27BP(1) would have had to be made if the employer had been required to make it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the date by which a payment must be made in order for the duty to give a notice under proposed section 27BR(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be disapplied.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(2) Determining whether reasonable notice of a shift was given must include an consideration of—(a) whether the work-finding agency offered the shift to the agency worker as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving confirmed information about the shift from the hirer in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (S. I. 3319/2003);(b) any time reasonably required by the agency to carry out suitability assessments in accordance with those Regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies how “reasonable notice” should be assessed for agency workers. It ensures that the work-finding agency must offer the shift to the worker as soon as reasonably possible after receiving confirmed details from the hirer, and after the agency has conducted suitability assessments, in line with relevant regulations.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we now move to consider reasonable notice in agency work, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.
Unfortunately, and despite all their show of consultation, I believe the Government have failed to realise how agencies operate in the labour market, so once again the drafting of the Bill shows the failure of a one-size-fits-all approach. The challenge we face in the context of the Bill is clear. Work-finding agencies operate in a highly dynamic and often unpredictable environment, where the flow of information from hirers is essential in matching workers to available shifts.
This brings us to the core concern. Agencies often rely on information from hirers about the availability and cancellation of assignments. Without timely and sufficient details from hirers, agencies cannot predictably or properly fulfil their role. Therefore, any new obligation to provide reasonable notice for agency workers must consider the time taken for agencies to receive this confirmed information and make the necessary arrangements and assessments.
Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 lays down that an agency cannot
“introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information”
to assess the suitability of the worker for the role in question. The issue here, therefore, is straightforward. Agency workers often find themselves without income as a consequence of cancellations initiated by hirers, yet agencies are held financially liable for those decisions, even though they have no control over the cancellations.
To illustrate the risk, let me provide a scenario. A work-finding agency places an agency worker with a hirer for a shift. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the hirer cancels the shift at short notice. The agency, having no control over the cancellation, is still required to compensate the worker. The financial burden therefore falls on the agency, despite the cancellation being the decision of the hirer.
How will this amendment help to ensure that small and medium-sized agencies are not disproportionately impacted—that is what we seek to do here—bearing in mind the financial responsibility associated with hirer-induced cancellations, particularly when the business in question may already be financially vulnerable? Do the Government believe that it is justified to place the financial burden of a cancellation or curtailment on the agency when the failure to provide notice lies entirely with the hirer?
I believe that the Minister understands the complexities of the agency-worker relationship, but the Bill in its present form does not make proper allowance. How do the Government propose to monitor and enforce the full accountability of hirers for failures in notice arrangements? This is an issue that has to be faced, given the rigidity of the legislation we are required to consider under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, which seek to clarify the framework governing agency workers, and I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. It seems to me that a third person looking into this process will see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give them 100% rights and the Conservatives trying to ensure that small and other businesses have a level playing field to employ, create jobs and grow the economy, which I thought was the Government’s objective. I wonder why, with this employment Bill, we cannot get a little closer to dealing with the mechanics.
The answer that the Minister gave to my probing amendment baffled me. I wanted to get up to ask him to explain what he said to me. Millions of people who listened to it or who read Hansard tomorrow will not have a clue. As my lumpy noble friend has said in previous debates, we seek clarity before the Act comes into power. We need to know these things. I spent four years on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The watchword on that committee was quite clear: do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the tin of a Bill is what it says on the front of the tin of a Bill. I wonder whether this tin will say “tomatoes” but when you open it, you will have carrots—a problem for somebody that does not eat carrots.
Running through this group of amendments, we on these Benches are trying to bring the parties together to understand that it is a two-way thing. I have been a committed trade unionist for 25 years. I have also run a business and employed 20 people. Those two things are compatible, but they are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. As with all legislation, we try to move it through by being sensible and finding common ground for what the trade union movement wants, what the Government want and what employers want. I had guests in yesterday who were asking about the Bill. I roughly outlined it, and they could not believe it. They employ 30 people. They said, “We can’t afford HR, we can’t afford lawyers, we can’t afford for people to take us to tribunals. We just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business”. I cannot understand how this has become so complicated.
On Amendment 33, concerning the interpretation of “reasonable notice” when shifts are offered to agency workers, the aim appears to be to require agencies to make offers promptly once details are confirmed by the hirer and all the checks have been completed. While this may be an attempt to bring greater clarity, I question whether that proposal and that language fully address the practical realities of agency work. The intention may be sound, but there is a risk of replacing one form of ambiguity with another. That said, for agency workers some degree of predictability and transparency is important and long overdue.
Amendment 36 introduces the idea of joint liability between work-finding agencies and hirers when a shift is cancelled or curtailed at short notice. There is merit in exploring whether a shared responsibility could lead to fairer outcomes, particularly when neither party should be able to shift all risk on to the other. Equally, it is important to consider how such provision would work in practice and whether it risks disincentivising the use of agency labour altogether.
Amendment 37 proposes that compensation should be triggered only when a shift has been formally confirmed, rather than relying on the more subjective “reasonable belief” test. I appreciate the effort to bring objectivity to a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether an assurance from an agency amounts to a genuine commitment. We need to understand how this might interact with the fast-moving nature of some temporary staffing such as seasonal work or that connected with the weather. Ambiguity in the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers.
Finally, Amendment 38 provides that the agency would not be liable to pay compensation where the hirer fails to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is arguably a fairer allocation of risk, as agencies should not be penalised for the failure of others. However, it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protections intended for the worker.
While these amendments raise important issues around the treatment of agency workers, I am not yet convinced that they strike the right balance in all aspects. There is a risk that in seeking to impose clearer structures, we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens. I think that this is what the Government are trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlying objectives—clarity, fairness and accountability—are ones that we should continue to pursue. Any changes to the framework must support clearer obligations and deliver fairer outcomes, for the workers and for the agencies and hirers. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the pressing need for the Government to offer clarity and consistency in this area.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their contributions, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling the amendments in this group, covering Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.
Before I speak to these, I reassure all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the Government respect and appreciate all the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The whole purpose of this is to address individual amendments and see where the Government are coming from and how we can find a way forward. There are some things in noble Lords’ amendments that may not be required because the Bill already covers them elsewhere. We are trying our very best to address every amendment and we welcome noble Lords’ scrutiny of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that we are not being flippant about any of these amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a helpful short debate. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, in seeking clarity, fairness and consistency. The Minister has given us some answers to the questions we posed, but it is just another example of where it is so important to think through the issues, as they affect all those who are in any way covered by the Bill. We will need to return to this matter during the further passage of the Bill to ensure that my objective and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is fulfilled—namely, that the provisions offer a fair and workable solution for all the parties involved.
Lastly, in an unguarded moment, the Minister, in responding to the previous amendment, said that the draft implementation plan was “a work in progress” and that he was considering it with his colleagues. I make an offer on behalf of all in the Committee: we would be willing to help this work in progress by looking carefully through the first draft of the implementation plan, while accepting that it may not be the final draft. At least it would give us an idea of what is in the Government’s mind as to implementing rather complicated provisions in the Bill, which are currently shrouded in some degree of mystery as to what they will bring forward in secondary legislation.
I just repeat what we have said several times in the debate so far: when you amend primary legislation through secondary legislation, it is far better, in our view, to have those amendments in the Bill rather than being left to some further process—admittedly, consultation—that would then amend that primary legislation through secondary legislation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I too have served on the other committees of this House, which find that Governments perhaps do not give secondary legislation the priority it needs but should never seek to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation. Many of our committees have said that time and again. If we could see the first draft of the implementation plan, we could assist the Minister and his colleagues to get this Bill right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed); (ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.
“(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, references to the movement of a shift (however expressed)—(a) are to any change to the time at which the shift is to start that is a change of more than a specified amount of time;(b) include—(i) where a shift is in two or more parts, a change of more than a specified amount of time to the time at which the second (or a subsequent) part is to start, and(ii) a division of a shift into two or more parts where the time between the parts is more than a specified amount of time,but only if the change or division (as the case may be) results in the shift ending later.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of the movement of a shift for the purposes of Part 3 of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 so as to deal with changes to the start time of a part of a shift or the division of a shift into parts.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, bringing paragraph 23(5) of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 into line with the equivalent provision (section 27BR(3)) inserted by clause 3.
“(8) The duty in sub-paragraph (4) is to be taken not to have applied if—(a) the work-finding agency or another person pays to the agency worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the work-finding agency would have been required to make to the agency worker under paragraph 21(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under sub-paragraph (1)(c), and(b) the payment is made on or before the day on which the payment under paragraph 21(1) would have had to be made if the work-finding agency had been required to make it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for agency workers that is equivalent to the provision made for non-agency workers by my amendment of clause 3 that leaves out lines 19 to 25 on page 26.
“(6) Where an employment tribunal finds as described in sub-paragraph (5)(c), the hirer is to be treated for the purposes of section 12A and Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (financial penalties) as an employer and as having breached the right of the agency worker to which the complaint under paragraph 25(1)(c) relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for provisions of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 concerning financial penalties to apply in relation to a hirer who is added to proceedings under paragraph 25(7) of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and who has a finding made against them in those proceedings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
(ii) an employee representative body or staff association that—(A) has been formally established for the purpose of consultation or negotiation with the employer,(B) represents a defined group of the employer’s workers or the workforce generally, and(C) operates independently of the employer in its decision-making, andthe worker’s employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the definition of an appropriate representative to include employee representative bodies or staff associations that are formally established, represent the workforce or defined groups of workers, and operate independently in decision-making. It ensures that workers can be represented by legitimate and independent collective structures beyond traditional trade unions.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 42, 43 and 44, which address a crucial gap in the Employment Rights Bill as currently drafted. The Bill, in its present form, assumes that collective agreements and the important rights that attach to them can be made only through trade unions. The assumption is problematic, as it fails to reflect the diverse and evolving landscape of employee representation in the United Kingdom.
Across a wide range of sectors, there are effective forms of employee representation that operate independently of trade unions. For example, many large employers across the UK have implemented formal employee forums, staff councils and other representative bodies that play a critical role in negotiating terms, improving working conditions and ensuring that workers have a voice. These bodies operate with transparency and independence; they often work closely with management but are not subject to the control of the employer. In sectors such as retail, hospitality and technology, companies have established these independent bodies to provide workers with a platform to express concerns, suggest improvements and engage with senior leadership on workplace issues. These bodies, although not unions, are trusted and valued by workers as genuine vehicles for consultation and negotiation.
Likewise, in industries such as financial services, employee representation often takes place through staff associations and other internal bodies that focus on consultation, transparency and communication between employers and employees. These bodies are instrumental in maintaining a constructive dialogue between workers and management, and they often handle issues such as pay, conditions and workplace policies without the need for union recognition.
The current draft of the Bill fails to accommodate these vital forms of representation. It risks excluding workers who are represented by such independent bodies from accessing the protections associated with collective agreements, including important provisions on guaranteed hours. This approach undermines existing employee engagement practices that have proven to be effective in fostering good relations between workers and employers. The Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to modernise our economy and bring employment rights into the 21st century. A key part of that modernisation must be acknowledging that trade unions are not the only legitimate means through which workers can be represented. Properly constituted employee forums and staff bodies can and do play a vital role in today’s diverse and evolving workplaces. By recognising this, the Government have an opportunity to align this legislation with the modern realities of work and deliver on their commitment to updating our employment framework.
Moreover, the Bill raises serious concerns about freedom of association. The principle of freedom of association is about not just the right to join a union but the right not to be compelled into union membership as a condition for accessing fair treatment at work.
If we want to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees, we must ensure that the Bill is inclusive of all legitimate and independent forms of worker representation. These amendments are designed to achieve that. They would extend the recognition of collective agreements to properly constituted employee representative bodies, such as staff forums or associations that operate independently from the employer in their decision-making. They would ensure that these bodies meet clear governance standards, including transparency, accountability and independence.
The Government’s aim is to promote better workplace relations, and these amendments support that aim. They would recognise the wide range of ways in which workers and employers engage with each other constructively. By recognising diverse forms of representation, we can build trust, enhance co-operation and create workplaces where both workers and employers can thrive. I urge the Government to support these amendments, which would reflect the realities of modern employee representation and strengthen the protections available to all workers, regardless of whether they belong to a traditional trade union. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I totally oppose these amendments. This is the first time I have spoken in the progress of this Bill. I have amendments coming up later. I think the noble Lord’s amendments illustrate the complete difference in mental framework between those who support and work with the trade union movement and those who do not. I should be clear that, although I do not have any formal interest to declare, I have spent most of my working life working in or for the trade union movement. The trade union movement and what it has achieved is based on 150 years of struggle.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Davies because I absolutely agree with what he says. I would add, just from my own experience, that, early in my working life, I worked in a retail organisation where there was a staff forum and where I and colleagues were organising to establish a trade union. The difference is this: that staff forum was set up by the employer. It was not set up by workers. That staff forum was funded by the employer; it was not funded by workers. That staff forum was not democratic, whereas the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. I would hope that one of the aims we could share across this House is to see an increase—an expansion—of genuine collective bargaining, because the evidence is very clear that, internationally, we see that the demise of collective bargaining has been associated with growing inequality, worse conditions at work, a poorer share of the wealth that workers help produce and no independent democratic voice.
I would hope that, in this country, we recognise that there are many, many working people who feel they have been denied a genuine voice—an independent voice—at work and in society, and they are rightly fed up about it. If we want to tackle that—if we want to tackle inequality and the sense of powerlessness that many people feel—it is collective bargaining through the route of independent, democratic trade unionism that we all need to see grow.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this group and I am torn between both sides. I have some cynicism about the Opposition’s attempt at recognising non-trade unions and staff associations. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has just made about employer-led staff clubs, which I have been, over the years, invited to join. While they have been very pleasurably good social forums, they are very different from trade unions.
However, I am afraid that there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is, based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle. I do not actually think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them, because there have been far too many instances of trade unions not being fit for purpose. Indeed, there is often a huge gap between trade union leaders and trade union members. Many members are leaving unions or not joining them, and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricatured way.
At Second Reading, I made the point—and I am only repeating it here now—that, for example, the Darlington Nursing Union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses and who have been attacked by their HR departments and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happens, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women—something that the Supreme Court has now at least acknowledged is the law—but they have been harassed and bullied and so on, and the trade unions abandoned them.
I made a point about the Free Speech Union. I appreciate that it is not a trade union, and nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is in his place, will become the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, of future negotiations. Despite the fact that that is an unlikely role for the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Free Speech Union has been forced into existence and has represented workers who have been done over by their employers when their trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making.
The UCU is one example of a university union. I was a NATFHE rep for many years in the further education sector and I have watched in horror the way that that union has degenerated and sold out its members. So, for the record, I would prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time. The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old. They could do with upping their game. Similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by people sitting closer to me on this side of the House.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We are having a good debate and I very much hope to keep it friendly. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, was really rather flying pigs.
I, obviously not like most of the Committee, am old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the destruction of the British automobile industry by the trade unions. London docks was destroyed by the trade unions. This led, through the 1970s, to the “winter of discontent”, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margret Thatcher who sought to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction they were wreaking on the British economy. We all remember that; I am not fantasising about this. This 150-year story of the great things wrought by the trade unions is really difficult to let go by without saying something.
Right now, only 22% of workers in the UK belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature of those unions. Let us remember that, of that 22%, most are in the public sector. Public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas they occupy and in return are being rewarded by a Labour Government. We saw the sorts of rises, which were completely unjustifiable compared with what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government awarded many public sector trade union workers when they came to power.
We saw how there is—I am not saying anything we do not all know—a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. I saw a number—I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it and it seems reasonable—that, since 2011 the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Whether that is true or not, we know the figure is of that order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of government, because of the deals the Labour Government have to make with these trade unions. It increases the cost and complexity of government, and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.
All those things destroy the economic growth which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier, we are all trying to achieve. I ask the Government please not to give us guff—I hope it is not unparliamentary to say that—about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether we are having a discussion for 2025, or one that is deeply mired in history. I find myself in some difficulty listening to either side of this discussion. I say very strongly that trade unions have been, and are, very important, but I also hope that people who watched the annual conference of the National Education Union, all of whose officers have the support of the Socialist Workers Party, may ask why a union like that should have spent more time talking about Gaza than it did about school attendance. We cannot be entirely happy about the circumstances of all trade unions, and this Government are going to have to face those trade unions pressed from that way.
On the other hand, I deeply disagree with the attitude we have just heard about trade unions being destructive. Trade unions have been very constructive in many circumstances, and this is something we should recognise. My problem with the Bill, and my reason for coming to this debate to support my noble friend’s amendments, is related to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton—who opened the Back-Bench remarks—said about trade unions: that they were not forced on anyone. They were created by people coming together to work for better attitudes, better conditions and better pay for working in those circumstances.
If people want to do that but want to be independent and not subject to their employers—as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, fears—and if they do not want to be called a trade union, then we ought, in 2025, to give them the powers to make the same kinds of arrangements with employers as a trade union. If we do not do that, this is going to be the one area where this Government will say there shall be no competition or opportunity for people to make a different decision about their future.
We ought to give people that opportunity, and we ought to protect those people by making sure that it is given to them only if they are independent, pay for it themselves and have chosen that particular mechanism. I say to the Labour party Front Bench that none of us who work—as I still do, happily—right across the board with all kinds of companies can think of today’s industry and commerce as if it were like yesterday’s. There are new circumstances and new ways of doing things, and the Bill ought to recognise that. If all it does is solidify the past, we will have missed a great opportunity.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, let me just explain that if an organisation meets the requirements to be free and independent, it is a trade union. Anyone can set up a trade union. If it does not meet the standards—many of which have been set by the party opposite—it is not a trade union and it is not capable of collectively representing its members. There is an illogicality in suggesting that an organisation that is not meeting the standards of a trade union can represent its members.
Lord Deben (Con)
If that is so, it is very simple: we can all agree to this amendment, with such alterations as are necessary, to make sure that they are independent. Then we can all feel that we have created an answer that suits today. Can we please get out of this yah-booing from both sides—and I mean both sides—about these issues? We have to find a way in which the whole of society can come more effectively together, without constantly determining that we have to do it like we did 100 years ago.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I endorse what my noble friend Lord Davies said a moment ago. A trade union is defined by Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, and it is an organisation of workers the primary purpose of which is to regulate relations between employers and workers. That is the only definition. Any body that does that is a trade union. So the sorts of organisations identified in these amendments will be trade unions. But, as trade unions, they have consequential obligations. For example, they have to elect their general secretary and their national executive committee by ballot every five years, and so on. So there are consequences to these amendments. By the way, a trade union defined by Section 1 is not necessarily independent. There are independent trade unions listed by the certification officer and non-independent trade unions. “Independence” has a specific meaning under the legislation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Phew—I do not know whether I want to join in this philosophical debate because, clearly, we have heard strong views on both sides, and they have strayed way beyond the amendments we are trying to moderate today. But I would say that the Bill overall seeks to find the right balance between workers, unions and businesses, recognising that each has an important role to play. Our aim in the Bill is to modernise those arrangements for the 21st century so that we are not playing “Yah-boo, you did that back in 1953” but are actually looking to the future. We hope that is what the Bill will deliver.
These amendments aim to broaden the provisions in the Bill to allow employee representative bodies or staff associations to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours measures. The Bill already allows these collective agreements to be made, but only by trade unions. As we are allowing for modification of statutory employment rights, it is vital that the appropriate safeguards are in place. This includes that only trade unions that have a certificate of independence, and are therefore free from employer control, can agree with employers to modify or opt out of rights, and that rights are guaranteed in exchange and incorporated into a worker’s contract.
I make it clear that staff associations and employee representative bodies, some of which we have heard described this afternoon, can do really good work, and we welcome engagement between employers and workers in all forms. However, we do not think it is appropriate for these associations and bodies to be able to modify statutory employment rights. This is not least because they may not have sufficient independence from the employers—a point well made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady—unlike independent trade unions, which do have that independence and which offer high levels of protection to workers. Furthermore, there is a well-established framework for trade unions, including recognition, independence and incorporation of terms, and the provisions build off these provisions.
I can see that the noble Lord’s amendments suggest a framework of requirements that staff associations and employee representative bodies would need to meet in order to modify or exclude zero-hours rights. These include requirements around independence, recognition, elections and record-keeping.
However, as my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Davies have said, the more you incorporate those requirements, the more you add to a staff association or employee representative body, the more similar it appears to be to an independent trade union. Given that the trade union framework is well established, historically and legally, it is not clear to me that it makes sense to establish a similar but different structure just for the purposes of the zero-hours measures. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Davies, Lady O’Grady and others for reminding us of the hard-won rights that we have achieved through organisations within the trade union movement. Trade unions already serve to protect and advance the interests of workers.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, presented a caricature of the unions. For every criticism he has, we could come back with all the advantages that trade unions have delivered for working people over the years in pay and conditions and in some of the fantastic campaigns—for example, around the environment, women’s rights, and so on. They have already contributed enormously to modernising workplace rights, so I do not feel that it would be appropriate or proportionate to try to recreate them. The trade unions already provide the constructive dialogue with employers to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, refers, and membership of trade unions remains voluntary for employees.
I say, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is a technical issue around all this. If his amendment was accepted as drafted, it would not achieve the aims that he intends. Collective agreements have a specific definition in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the zero-hours provisions are being inserted into. The definition, referring to the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides that collective agreements are ones between independent and certified trade unions and employers’ or employees’ associations, so there would not be scope in the way that the noble Lord has worded his amendment for a wider definition of employee representatives.
We have had a debate which I have a feeling we are going to return to on some of the other trade union issues, but, for the time being, with this set of amendments in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That was a short but most interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for their comments. No one on this side is denying that trade unions often have a proud history. As my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out, they have a very strong history in securing workers’ rights which has been constructive for our country over many years—no one is denying that. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, not all modern trade unions support that history. I am sure that noble Lords would accept that.
The fact is that the world has evolved, and these amendments simply respect that evolution. My noble friend Lord Moynihan points out that only 22% of workers are currently unionised. The latest figure that I can find for the private sector is 12.3%. The other 88% have not been prevented from joining a trade union; they have exercised a choice not to, a democratic choice, so trying to argue that this proposal is somehow undemocratic makes no sense in the context of the rest of the Bill. Why, for example, does the Bill later on scrap the 40% turnout requirement for statutory recognition? That seems profoundly undemocratic.
Having said all that, I am obviously very grateful to the Minister for her response, and I accept that there are probably technical issues with my amendment. With that helpful hint, I shall improve them for the next time that we debate these measures. However, on the first day in Committee, we heard the Government argue that, in relation to guaranteed hours:
“Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers”.—[Official Report, 29/4/25; col. 1203.]
If the Government are willing to accept that logic for trade unions, surely the same reasoning must be extended to independent staff bodies and employment forums, many of which are embedded deeply within the day-to-day life of a company and have even greater practical knowledge of their specific industries and workplaces. In some cases, those bodies are closer to the operational realities of individual businesses than remote union structures, and they are more trusted by the employees themselves.
The debate should ultimately be about respecting individual workers and their choices. The Government’s stance suggests a lack of trust in individual workers and the belief that, unless a worker is represented through a traditional trade union, their voice is somehow less valid or less informed. Fundamentally, it appears that the Government do not believe in the individual and do not trust workers to know what works best in their own context; instead, they insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, even when that model may be entirely foreign to a smaller business or industries where union involvement has never been the norm.
What about the many employees who are content with their current representation? Will they now be told that their structures are not good enough and that they have to change, bring in new frameworks, hire experts and prepare for union-led negotiations, whether they want them or not? Will industries that have long enjoyed stable relations be pushed into more adversarial models, creating the very tensions that this Bill should be seeking to avoid? Can the Minister perhaps enlighten us as to how smaller businesses and those that have never operated within a unionised environment will adapt to rigid models such as this, which assume that union involvement is the only valid route to collective agreement?
These amendments do not challenge the value of trade unions—very far from it. They simply recognise that unions are not the only route to fair and effective representation. If the Government are truly serious about modernising employment rights, we must begin by acknowledging the diversity of how workers organise today. For now, I am of course content to withdraw the amendment.
““work-finding agency” has the meaning given by section 27BV;”Member’s explanatory statement
The definition of “work-finding agency” in proposed section 27BV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies for the purposes of Part 2A of that Act. This amendment adds reference to the definition to the Part 2A interpretation provision in proposed section 27BZ2 of that Act.
“Insolvency Act 1986
A1 In the Insolvency Act 1986, in Schedule 6 (categories of preferential debts), in paragraph 13(2), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) preferential debts for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.
“The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is amended as follows.1A (1) Section 12A (financial penalties) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (11), in the definition of “employer”, after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in relation to a right conferred by Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A, or section 47H, of the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes a person who is an employer by virtue of section 27BJ(7) or (as the case may be) 27BP(8) of that Act;(ab) in relation to a right conferred by Part 1 or 2 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Part 1 of Schedule A1 to that Act, includes the hirer within the meaning of the relevant Part of that Schedule;(ac) in relation to a right conferred by Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes (where it would not otherwise do so) the work-finding agency within the meaning of the relevant Part of that Schedule;(ad) in relation to a right conferred by section 47I of the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes (where it would not otherwise do so) a person who is a relevant person within the meaning of that section;”.(3) In that subsection, in the definition of “worker”, for the words from “includes” to the end of the definition substitute “—(a) includes an individual seeking to be employed by a person as a worker;(b) in relation to a right conferred by Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A, or section 47H, of the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes an individual who is a worker by virtue of section 27BJ(7) or (as the case may be) 27BP(8) of that Act;(c) in relation to a right conferred by—(i) Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996,(ii) Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Part 1 of Schedule A1 to that Act, or(iii) section 47I of that Act,includes (where it would not otherwise do so) an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act (see section 27BV of that Act).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts an amendment of section 12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 that is consequential on provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be inserted by clauses 2, 3 and 5 of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the Bill.
“1B “(1) Section 16 (power to provide for recoupment of benefits) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) payments under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996,”.(3) At the end insert—“(7) In the application of this section to payments which are the subject of proceedings under Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Chapter 2 of that Part, and which are compensation for loss of wages (see subsection (1)(a))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part.(8) In the application of this section to payments which are the subject of proceedings under Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Part 1 of that Schedule, and which are compensation for loss of wages (see subsection (1)(a))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a hirer or (as the case may be) a work-finding agency within the meaning of the relevant Part of that Schedule;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act.(9) In the application of this section to payments under Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(c)(i)) by virtue of section 47H of that Act—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of that section.(10) In the application of this section to payments under Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(c)(i)) by virtue of section 47I of that Act—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a relevant person within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act.(11) In the application of this section to payments under section 27BP(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(da))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 2A of that Act;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of that Chapter.(12) In the application of this section to payments under paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(da))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a work-finding agency within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of that Part.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts an amendment of section 16 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 that is consequential on provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be inserted by clauses 1 to 3 and 5 of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 180, leaving out lines 7 to 18.
“(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) or (e) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the worker acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to Schedule 2, page 180, line 3, replaces the current subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 47H of the Employments Rights Act 1996 so that they work correctly for all categories of proceedings mentioned in subsection (1)(d) of that proposed section.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 181, leaving out lines 30 to 44.
“(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) or (e) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the agency worker acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to Schedule 2, page 181, line 25, replaces the current subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 47I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that they work correctly for all categories of proceedings mentioned in subsection (1)(d) of that proposed section.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds to the types of dismissal that are to be regarded as automatically unfair under proposed section 104BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 26.
“(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (3) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the employee acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 26 and, together with my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 28, reflects the approach taken in other of my amendments to Schedule 2 by replacing the current subsections (4) and (5) with provision that works for all the categories of proceedings.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is for consistency with the change made by my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 28.
“(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (3) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the employee acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is for consistency with the change made by my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, leaving out lines 31 to 37.
“13A In section 184 (debts to which Part 12 of the Act (insolvency of employers) applies), in subsection (2), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) subject to the provision in Part 12 of that Act about insolvent employers.
“13B “(1) Section 202 (national security restrictions on disclosure of information) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1),”.(3) In subsection (2)(b), for “and 47C” substitute “, 47C, 47H and 47I”.(4) In subsection (2)(g)(i)—(a) for “or 103” substitute “, 103, 104BA or 104BB”;(b) after “application” insert “in relation to rights conferred by Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1) or”.(5) In subsection (2)(g)(ii), for “or (6)” substitute “, (6), (7BZA) or (7BZB)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will prevent information from being disclosed under provisions inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by clauses 1 to 3 and 5 of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the Bill, or in court or tribunal proceedings relating to those provisions, if its disclosure would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security.
“14A “(1) Section 206 (institution or continuance of tribunal proceedings) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1),”.(3) After subsection (9) insert—“(10) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of Part 2A, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A so far as relating to Chapter 2 of that Part, references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part.(11) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A, references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part.(12) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to Chapter 5 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1), or Chapter 6 of Part 2A so far as relating to Part 1 of Schedule A1—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to— (i) a hirer, or(ii) a work-finding agency, and(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker,within the meaning of Chapter 5 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1).(13) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to section 47H—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of that section.(14) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to section 47I—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a relevant person within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that that section, and section 207, apply with appropriate glosses in relation to proposed Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A, and proposed sections 47H and 47I, of that Act.
“Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016
19 In the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016, in Schedule 3 (preferred debts), in paragraph 10(2)—(a) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift),”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “the Employment Rights Act 1996” substitute “that Act”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) preferred debts for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Impact assessment: sections 1 to 8(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—(a) the impact of sections 1 to 8 on the operation of employment tribunals, and(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we now move to consider the impact assessments, or lack of them. Amendment 62, which I will speak to first, considers the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hour contract provisions. Amendment 63 would require an impact assessment within six months, specifically for the hospitality sector, the retail sector and the health and social care sector. I greatly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who has kindly given her name to that amendment, along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Earlier this week we heard, and it was reported in the Financial Times, that the UK employment tribunal backlog had hit record levels. Some 49,800 cases were waiting to be heard by an employment tribunal at the end of the final quarter of last year, up from 39,000 in the same period of 2023. That is according to data from HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Earlier this afternoon, the Government refused to accept Amendment 21, which I spoke to and which would allow businesses to make a dismissal in the case of genuine business needs. By rejecting this amendment, as well as any suggestion from businesses throughout their consultation, I think that the Government are risking overloading the employment tribunal system even more than is the case today.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Government have previously tabled so-called technical amendments that would have required employers to make work available to zero-hour workers. This alone highlights how impractical the current zero-hour contract provisions are when viewed through the lens of tribunal risk. It is deeply concerning, in particular, that the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the Government’s impact assessment on day-one rights over unfair dismissal.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, until my earlier rant on trade unions, I had not been available to speak consistently in the debates on Clauses 1 to 8, although I have been listening in or following them. I have not been able to be here because of the problems of contemporary work: a portfolio career running from one job to another and never having time to do everything I want to do.
One of the reasons I am very keen on an impact assessment on the impacts of Clauses 1 to 8 on these sectors—the subject of the amendment to which I added my name, looking at hospitality, retail and health and social care—is that I feel as though the modern employment landscape has changed so dramatically. Despite the fact that we have a Bill about modernising employment rights, I have sometimes felt that there has not been an adequate recognition of how things have changed. As I hinted at earlier, there is a rather caricatured view on a variety of sides of the Committee, as though we were stuck in the 1970s and every employee and every worker was a public sector worker with a nine-to-five job. That is just not what it is like. The contemporary workplace often needs flexibility, for the sake of the workers as much as anything. But it is an argument, and I am not going to go into the details.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt—of wherever—for allowing me to put my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained well the different issues that have been raised in the debates until now, as I understand them. On different Bills I have raised the problems in these sectors, so I will not repeat them. But I note that, in a debate on Martyn’s law—which has now become an Act of Parliament as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act—I raised the real problems that the hospitality sector is facing at the moment because it is under the cosh and overregulated. People who work in that sector feel that it is not going to survive. There are the national insurance contributions and the regulations being brought in. The retail sector, such as convenience stores, will now face a whole barrage of assaults in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill; I talked about that at great length, so I will not repeat that.
I fear that the health and social care sector has exploited care workers via zero-hour contracts; I have talked about that in the past. A modernisation of the health and social care sector is required, and I am disappointed that the present Government have not brought that forward. The one thing that I would like a Bill on is the modernisation of the health and social care sector, instead of these other Bills, which I think do some damage. Despite that, all that the amendment I am supporting calls for is an impact assessment of Clauses 1 to 8.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63. I agree that the impact of Clauses 1 to 8 will be especially felt by these three sectors: hospitality, retail and social care. But, to be frank, I would not stop there; I advocate expanding this impact assessment, not only to small businesses and micro-businesses—noble Lords would expect me to say that—but to all key sectors in the economy. There will be huge employment variations sector by sector, and they need to be analysed and understood. As we keep hearing, one size does not fit all—although the Bill has a different view on that—and we have the issue of “mind the gap”.
Two other industries that certainly deserve such assessments are the creative industries, which we will debate on another day, and the gig economy. Some very disturbing numbers are already coming out of membership surveys from bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I will share two bits of data from the ICAEW’s latest quarterly business survey for the first quarter of this year. It says that 53% of its members expect that the Bill will
“reduce their plans to hire permanent staff”,
and that 40% anticipate greater use of outsourcing because of the Bill—that is a very significant number.
What does this mean? It means—it is already happening—that employees will be coming off payroll and going into freelance and self-employed roles. We have an amendment coming up in many days’ time, or probably weeks; I will not read out the names of my noble friends who are behind it, but it is Cross-Bench and Liberal Democrat-sponsored and relates to the establishment of a freelance commissioner office. I think the Government may have very little choice on this, because the demands for the services of that office are going to go up exponentially, partly because of this Bill and also because of the national insurance contributions Bill. I will not repeat all those arguments.
I come to the second unforeseen consequence—although, frankly, these are not unforeseen, are they? They are foreseen. We can actually say with some certainty that the Government are encouraging the offshoring of jobs from the UK. This trend has been going on for decades, but is it really the objective of the Government, particularly for lower-paid and entry-level roles, to see a percentage of those jobs going off to countries such as India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Romania or Moldova? I am not against offshoring, but I think you have to be very careful about being seen to be encouraging it, and I believe the Bill is guilty of that.
On the assessment, which we hope will happen, the area that should be looked at in greatest detail is the impact on part-time jobs. We have heard already about the young graduates and students, but I will speak up also for older workers. Those of us here who sit on the Economic Affairs Committee—I see the noble Lord, Lord Davies, here—will be aware that we are conducting an inquiry on the economics of an ageing society. If the Government are to achieve their noble objective of raising the economic activity rate from 75% to 80% across all age groups, they will have to tackle the 50 to 70 year-old cohort.
In order to get people back into work, not just those who took premature retirement but those who have been on benefits for a long time, we will have to be far more flexible about creating part-time work, and I am afraid that the Bill is likely to deter the creation of part-time roles. So that is another area that I believe the impact assessment should be looking at, which is not just by sector but by type of job.
I am told by my friends in the recruitment industry, if I can call them that, that there is already a shift in hiring from permanent to interim, and that trend started at the beginning of this year and is accelerating. Again, national insurance contributions have pushed employment in that direction and the Bill threatens to do the same.
My final point, talking about assessments, is that HMRC may well want to conduct one to discover that its projected national insurance contribution tax revenues will, as a result of the Bill, take a significant hit as employees start being taken off payroll and moved into self-employed, part-time or even offshored roles.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Perhaps I might intervene briefly on this group. I support Amendment 63 but, like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I wonder whether it is too modest in scope. As I said when I spoke on the last day in Committee, I am sympathetic to the kinds of effects that zero-hours contracts or some of the different kinds of practices that we see now have on employees in these businesses, which are often at the lower end of the pay scale.
However, I am very struck, by listening not just to this debate but to the debates on the various different things that we have been discussing this afternoon, that what we do not seem to be taking account of—or rather, to be more specific, what the Government do not seem to have taken account of in bringing forward this legislation—is that a lot of the practices that they are trying to remove or mitigate are the consequence of other things that have been introduced in the past which have been well intentioned in support of low-paid workers but are now creating other things. For instance, although it is going back some time now and various other things have happened since, I think about the arrival of tax credits when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. That led to people wanting to reduce their contracted hours because of the impact on their various benefits.
So when I hear people say that some of these measures—or, rather, the removal of some of these practices and various other things in the Bill—start to disincentivise people either being offered more hours or whatever, I worry that, given the way in which the Bill has been introduced and what feels like inadequate assessment through the proper stages—Green Paper, and all that sort of thing—we are creating yet more problems, which will then lead to the need for yet more legislation, which will never get to the heart of what we are trying to do here, which is to create an employment economy that is fair for employees and people do not feel that they are being exploited but have the flexibility that they need, and where employers, too, have the freedom and independence that they absolutely need to be able to employ workers and grow their businesses to contribute to the fundamental agenda, which is a growing economy that is fair to everybody concerned.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is another one of those divided-off groups. I am going to speak to impact assessments and reserve what I say on tribunals for the next group. There is a danger when talking about the existence of and the need for impact assessments that we start providing our own impact assessments. I am afraid that many of your Lordships fell into that trap. I will try to avoid it, so I will not be commenting on what should be in an impact assessment; I will be commenting on why we need improved impact assessments. Some of the Government’s amendments have already been debated. I was not able to be here during that part of the process, but, on reading the debate, I saw that it further illustrated that, with each layer of new amendments, changes are coming to the Bill and complications and reflections are being added.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, before he gave us his impact assessment, made I think his most important point, which was to bring up the findings of the RPC on the existing impact assessment. That is before all the changes that have come and before the Bill changed substantially between the Commons and your Lordships’ House, and therefore, unscrutinised to this point. I am very much in the camp of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough: if we are going to redo an impact assessment, we should do it properly. We should go back and produce one that is meaningful, that the RPC can endorse and that we can use meaningfully in the next stages of this Bill.
I am not sure how many of your Lordships worked on the then Professional Qualifications Bill. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, may at least be one. Sometimes the then public procurement Bill is used as an example of Bills that come half-baked—or, in that case, not even in the cooker—but actually the best example is the Professional Qualifications Bill. That Bill differed from this one in that it started in your Lordships’ House, but it came to your Lordships’ House full of things that needed to change, full of drafting points and full of extensions and amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who was the Minister, stood where the Minister is today and said, when we came to the end of Committee, “Well, my Lords, it is clear that we have to take this Bill on a holiday”. And that is what he did. He took it away for four months and came back with a Bill that was properly drafted. The “i”s had been dotted and the “t”s crossed and we were able to make a reasonable piece of legislation to pass to the Commons for its work.
We have some time. This is a flagship Bill. It had to be introduced within 100 days because that is what the Government told the world. I understand that. But it is very important that we get this right. The Minister should start thinking about vacation plans for the Bill between Committee and Report, so that things such as the impact assessment can be delivered to your Lordships’ House. Those of us who want the Bill to succeed will then be sure that it has a chance to succeed.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Fox and Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Stowell, for their contributions, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 62 and 63. These amendments cover the impact of the Bill’s zero-hour contracts provisions on the employment tribunal system and on specific sectors.
Let me place on record that the Government recognise the vast contribution that the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors make to the nation’s economy, and that they employ millions of people. I will give some examples. The hospitality sector currently employs 330,000 people on zero-hours contracts, which makes up 28.9% of the workforce. The retail and wholesale sector employs close to 90,000 people, equating to 7.8% of the workforce. The health and social care sector employs 190,000 people, contributing 16.5% of the workforce.
Zero-hours contracts offer flexibility for some workers, but evidence indicates that they have been exploited by certain UK companies, leading to job insecurity and limited work rights. This pro-business, pro-worker Bill aims to address these issues by effective enforcement and by closing the loopholes, to ensure fair treatment for all workers so that we can grow our economy.
Amendment 63 seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill on specific sectors of the economy within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee will know, the Government have already published a very comprehensive set of 27 impact assessments, spanning close to 1,000 pages. These are based on the best available evidence of the sectors likely to be affected by these measures. As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, the RPC’s opinions refer to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment and not to the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow. We will therefore be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue consultation and engagement.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Can the noble Lord respond to the red rating which the RPC has given the Government’s impact assessment? Are the Government continuing discussions with the Regulatory Policy Committee to try to reverse that red rating, to meet the necessary requirements that the Regulatory Policy Committee imposes on all Governments? When will we see an end to the red rating and an acceptance that the Government have learned from the experience and judgment of the RPC?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. This impact assessment will continue. I will be mentioning later in my speech that there will be further impact assessments. Regarding his specific point about the RPC’s rating, I will write to him.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, to meet our Better Regulation requirements. In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, as we have said on previous groups, including those from the sectors listed in the amendment.
Amendment 62 would insert a new clause to require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill. The detailed package of analysis, to which I referred a moment ago, also includes an illustrative impact assessment of the Bill’s measures on employment tribunal cases. We intend to refine this over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. We recognise the importance of assessing the impact of these policies on the enforcement system and have worked in partnership with these organisations throughout policy development.
We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, as I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the Government are taking various steps to increase capacity within the employment tribunal system. For example, ACAS currently provides information to employees and employers on employment law, and early conciliation for potential employment tribunal claims. It also offers post-claim conciliation. The Government have taken various steps to increase capacity, such as the deployment of legal caseworkers and recruitment of additional judges.
HMCTS continues to invest in improving tribunal productivity through the deployment of legal officers to actively manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We are committed to looking at what more we can do in this area, working with the Ministry of Justice and wider stakeholders such as ACAS, as I just mentioned. We are already helping many employers and workers to reach settlement before they need to go on to a further hearing.
Our work will also include looking at opportunities for the fair work agency to take on enforcement, where that would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to an employment tribunal.
I refer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about gaps in the Bill. The Bill does not have any gaps. Some elements of the Bill await engagement or future engagement and consultation with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that the policies work for all involved.
I hope I have reassured your Lordships and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am delighted that consultations are occurring but, as legislators, we are asked to vote on a Bill without having seen the consultations. The Minister can tell me that there are no gaps because it will all be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves; what are we doing, sitting here, reading through line by line in Committee and discussing a Bill that we are told not to worry our little heads about? Those are the gaps.
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, I did not say “little heads”. It is important that we continue to have conversations with stakeholders. Most noble Lords know, and I am sure the noble Baroness knows, that employment law includes a lot of regulations. Previous employment legislation puts further regulations in place. It is important and right that we speak to a wide group of stakeholders, businesses, workers, trade unions and everybody involved in this, so that we get it right.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
One last thing: to be frank, I want the Government to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent people. It is simply that it should have been done before the Bill was brought to us. I want it to be noted on the record that wide consultation work should have been done, but the Government should not have brought legislation that could have unintended consequences that damage workers’ rights, while they proclaim that it will save workers’ rights. If they had not done the consultations, they should never have brought it to Parliament to be discussed.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.
Lord Fox (LD)
When I talked about taking the Bill on a holiday, I was not joking; I was serious, and it would be quite nice if the Minister would take it seriously and respond.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I take the noble Lord’s point. At the rate the Bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back again to discuss it further.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, that was a very significant admission by the Minister, for which we thank him. We will need the recess to rethink quite a lot of the Bill.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is a gap-filled Bill. I know that the Minister is told in his brief to say there are no gaps, but there are gaps. Wherever you look in the Bill, there is further work to be done before the Government will say what they will do. It takes huge powers—Henry VIII powers—to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments. That is a hugely significant step, and we as a reasonably sensible Chamber cannot possibly allow the Government to get away with that.
You cannot get away with saying to Parliament, “We’re not going to give you the detail of what we’re going to do. Indeed, we’re not going to tell you what we’re going to do, because we’re going to consult and then we will do it by statutory instrument”. That is not the way to legislate. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been very helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for reminding us about the creative industry—the gig industry.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, we have to have a relevant impact assessment so that Parliament can see what effect the Bill will have on a rapidly changing workforce. The workforce has changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years and the modern landscape has changed substantially.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate what he has said. We are all for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill—we welcome it. We welcome every single amendment and clause being scrutinised. The Government believe that the delegated powers in the Bill are necessary. I am pleased, as the noble Lord will have noted, that the DPRRC found it
“heartening that in a Bill with so many … powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.
The Government will respond formally in due course to the DPRRC.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I just happen to have the report of the DPRRC here, and it does raise serious concerns. One of the concerns it has constantly raised about all Governments is that they should not amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. They should be upfront about what they are going to do, and change.
It may well be that the Minister will take great comfort in the fact that there are only 18 black lines of criticism—18. I hope that he will take the advantage that has been given to him on all sides to take the Bill away and try to find a better solution.
We must not forget that the Bill I originally saw at Second Reading in the House of Commons has changed substantially: 160 amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. They were not scrutinised line by line—they could not be, because they were produced at the last moment.
The Government have to recognise that, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it may well be that the Bill is going to disincentivise a whole range of employment situations, which is going to have a massive impact on the whole employment scene. It may well be that my noble friend is right that it is going to create more problems. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already got a major concession concerning the utilisation of the recess, but we need to pause and say to the Government, can we now see the overall impact assessment and, in particular, have an undertaking that they will continue to scrutinise carefully the effect of all this legislation on the employment market before it is too late?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I just want to clarify that we are still sticking to seven days, and the recess I mean is the Whitsun Recess at the end of this month. It will come back.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I was looking to a longer holiday for us all to scrutinise the Bill. There is no need for the Minister to keep clarifying his comments. I just take them at face value, and it is an undertaking on his part to reflect on all the issues that have been raised, particularly the impact assessment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) In section 80F, for subsection (8)(a)(i) substitute—“(i) has received a job offer, and”.”
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment makes a simple change to the right to request flexible working. In 2023, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act amended the right to request flexible working so that it applied from the first day of employment. Previously, employees needed to wait for 26 weeks as a qualifying period before making a request. That was a good move forwards, but in practice, this still means that when finding and taking a new job, an employee might need to leave a role that offers them the flexibility they need without knowing whether their new employer can accommodate their responsibilities outside work. If that request is then denied, the employee may find themselves in an impossible situation, forced to choose between their work and their responsibilities outside work. Employers might also find themselves having gone through a whole recruitment process, having waited for their new recruit to work a notice period for their previous employer, only to find that they cannot accommodate their new employee’s request and potentially having to start the recruitment process again. To me, that is a lose-lose situation, leaving both the employee and the employer worse off.
TUC research shows that two in five mothers do not feel comfortable asking for the flexible working they need during a job interview, for fear that they will face discrimination or have their offer withdrawn. Changing the law to allow flexible working requests from the job offer stage would give candidates vital protection. As I have said, the change would also benefit employers. It would create a legal framework for an open, honest conversation about working patterns before contracts are signed, ensuring that both parties can agree on arrangements that genuinely work for them. It does not change employers’ need to consider a flexible working request, nor their right, having given it proper consideration, to say that it does not fit with their business needs. Such a change would and could support fairer hiring, greater inclusion and better long-term retention.
Flexible working can unlock economic opportunities for growth. Indeed, the post-implementation review of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014, which extended the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just those with caring responsibilities, showed that flexible working can reduce vacancy costs, increase skills retention, enhance business performance and reduce staff absenteeism rates. It has the potential to bring people back into economic activity who would otherwise have left the labour market.
The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, spoke about the importance of bringing older people back into work, along with people with disabilities and those who have been on benefits for a period of time. These are people whom the Government are spending a lot of time and effort trying to re-engage into the workforce for their own good and for the good of economic growth. This change could help do that.
On these Benches, we have emphasised the benefits of having a flexible labour market, and, in my view, that means one where people are able to move easily between employers. I think this amendment would support that, so I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks of this proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I shall speak to Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, who is unable to be in his place today due to a long-standing family commitment.
Clause 9, on flexible working, will make a huge difference to working people, including those with caring responsibilities. Many of us know all too well and very personally the daily juggling-act miracle that working mums especially are expected to perform. Anything that makes their lives easier has to be welcome. Flexible working has the added benefit to business and for the wider economy of making it easier for carers to both enter the workforce and stay there. This will help close the gender pay gap, reduce child poverty and help keep mothers and babies healthier.
Amendment 66 seeks to address the concern that, to be effective, those new rights must have teeth. I know that my noble friend Lord Watson would want to acknowledge the support of Maternity Action and the National Education Union in preparing this amendment. Amendment 66 would require the Business and Trade Secretary to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award where an employer has not followed its obligations in dealing with an employee’s flexible-working request.
Currently, employees have the right to request flexible working, but employers can refuse on a wide range of listed grounds. Clause 9 boosts employees’ rights by introducing a reasonableness requirement, meaning that employers will be permitted to refuse a statutory flexible-working request only if it is reasonable to do so on one or more of the listed grounds. This new requirement is a positive step towards making flexible working the default. The problem is about the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award when it upholds an employee’s complaint about how an employer has treated their flexible-working application.
Currently, the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal can award is eight weeks’ pay, capped at £719 per week, which is a total of £5,752. This low compensation cap does not reflect the devastating cost to a worker where that flexible working has been unreasonably refused. Maternity Action and trade unions have documented how unreasonable refusals effectively force employees—particularly many new mothers and other carers—out of their job, often into lower-paid and less secure work or out of work altogether.
Flexibility should be a two-way street for the employer and worker, but in the real world too often it is mothers who are paying a high price. Set against the expense of legal representation, the low level of compensation available deters mothers from pursuing a flexible-working complaint through an employment tribunal. Their only meaningful recourse may be an indirect sex-discrimination claim against their former employer for which compensation is not capped. However, such claims are often long, complicated and extremely stressful. It is much better to send a signal that the Government are serious about enforcing flexible working rights so that employers are encouraged to do the right thing in the first place.
In the Bill’s impact assessment, it is stated that an aim of the changes in Clause 9 is to allow an employment tribunal to scrutinise whether the decision to reject a flexible working request was reasonable. For that to be effective, penalties should be introduced that reflect a substantive failure to act in accordance with a new reasonableness requirement. The Government’s aim of making flexible working the default is very welcome, but I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report or provide reassurance that other routes will be taken to ensure that the new right to flexible working is one that will be enforced in practice and that workers who are unreasonably refused such arrangements get adequate compensation.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest that I work for Marsh, a very large insurance broker in this country and around the world. I run a team of between 30 and 40 people. Within that team, I have all sorts, sizes and cultures—you name it. Of that team, all the married women—I should say, the women with children—have some sort of flexible way that they work with us. I can tell noble Lords from my own experience that unhappy staff do not do good work; it is 101. Happy staff are very likely to do very good work. One of my main jobs is to keep my team happy, and I am given immense flexibility to do it. Without this amendment, it is less easy. I rest my case.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which was so ably enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I think that the amendment is neither fish nor fowl really. It is perfectly possible, as I understand it, for the Government to have already addressed this issue and, by statutory instrument, to set differential rates for compensation at employment tribunal. It seems rather a waste of time, and not necessarily a good use of ministerial time, to put in primary legislation another review.
My substantial issue is also that this, again, tips the balance are much more towards the worker, unreasonably, and away from the employer. I think that is to be deprecated, because that is what we have seen in so many aspects of this Bill. This leads me to conclude something else as well. On a risk-based assessment of whether you would wish to employ a person, an employer may very well conclude—it may, unfortunately, be an encumbrance of being a female employee or potential employee—that “We do not wish to employ that person because she may apply for flexible working, and it is better to employ someone else”. This is particularly because of the risk that, in going to an employment tribunal, after already having believed they had behaved in a reasonable way, they would be subject to a potential substantial monetary fine, which will impact on their bottom line. That is not good for those workers. It is not for the women who wish to work and have flexibility.
I broadly agree with the idea of reasonableness in applying for flexible working. That is how our jobs market and employment regime works now. Many women do want flexible working, and it is absolutely right that employers reasonably consider that. But I think this amendment is a step too far, because it will have the unintended consequence of making it more likely that women will not be employed because they may ask for flexible working. I think it is otiose: it is unnecessary, and it will not add to the efficacy of the Bill.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, just when I was getting worried that everybody was going to agree, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, popped up to rescue us. In his objection, it seems that the noble Lord has second-guessed the findings of the impact assessment that we have not had yet, which will add to the level of fines if his point that it will help workers more than employers is correct. On that basis, he was admitting that the fine is already too low, so I am not sure where he was going on that. He then drifted into a critique of the principle of flexible working.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will not give way. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Had I been a little more organised, I would have signed her amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Will the noble Lord give way very briefly at this juncture?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
Order. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not going to give way, and that is his prerogative.
Lord Fox (LD)
If I get to a point where I feel like it, I will. At the moment, I would like to develop my point.
The issue in Amendment 64 was dealt with very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and then picked up subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. This is commonly thought of as a soft policy—a one-sided policy about giving people things—but both speakers touched on the harder edge to this, and I would like to emphasise it too. This is good for the economy. It is an economic hard edge. We have millions of people who are not working and not able to work. Some of them will never work, but many, with more flexibility and the right amount of help, will be able to work. It is, quite rightly, the Government’s objective to bring as many of those people into the workforce as possible, and flexible working is one of the important tools that will enable us to do that.
I am broadly sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson; there is no problem in assessing the impact of tribunals. But during the debate on the last group I promised to bring in a wider point on tribunals: unless we clear up the tribunal system, it will not matter what the level of sanction is, because it is going to be years before that sanction is brought. It becomes a meaningless activity, particularly for the employee but also for the employer. As I have said before, every time we go into a tribunal, both sides lose. We have to find ways of moving the system faster and eliminating issues within the system that are clogging it. That is why I asked the Minister for a proper meeting to go through the whole issue of what the Government are planning to do with tribunals—not on just what the Bill does but on how they are going to flush the system through and get it working properly.
If the Government do not do that, a huge lump of the Bill will fail, because it will be years and years before any of the sanctions are brought and before—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leong—case law becomes an important element of how we define what “reasonable” means. If we have to wait two or three years before we get that ruling, how many more unreasonable things are going to happen in the meantime? This is a vital point, and I very much hope that the Minister responds to it. I will now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Not for the first time, he has mischaracterised what I said. It is very clear, and I was quite emphatic, that I support reasonable requests for flexible working. So I would be obliged if the noble Lord did not wilfully misrepresent what I said barely five minutes ago, although I know that, being a Liberal Democrat, he is not always acquainted with the actuality.
Lord Fox (LD)
I was about to, but I clearly will not now, so the noble Lord can fly for that one.
Flexible working is an important tool for getting people back in the workplace and keeping them there. We should be grateful for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, tabled, and I hope the Government are sensible enough to adopt their version of it at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general praise and congratulations for my noble friend Lady Penn for her Amendment 64. There is not much more for me to say, other than that I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I hope the Government are listening and will address the issue raised by my noble friend as we get to the next stage. If they do not, I would be more than happy to support my noble friend in her future endeavours.
Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was expertly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I was going to echo very much the same points about the employment tribunals. An awful lot will be expected of them but, as we know, the simple fact is that the backlog is increasing, there is a shortage of funds and the waiting times are increasing—they are up to two years. It does not seem very plausible to expect that employment tribunals will be able to cope with the amount of work that is coming their way—I am afraid that will probably include work with regard to that amendment. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s comments.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Lord will not; he will hear from me. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie in absentia for tabling Amendment 66 and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for so ably speaking to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for tabling Amendment 64. This has been a broadly helpful debate, if somewhat spicier than expected, on flexible working.
This group and the next deal with flexible working. I agree with many of the comments that noble Lords across the Committee made in highlighting how important flexible working is in helping people to balance work with responsibilities in their personal lives, particularly caring responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, pointed out, flexibility can lead to happier, healthier and more productive employees. He is absolutely right on this point. It is good for employees, good for businesses and, in turn, good for the economy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, outlined in some detail, along with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, a primary benefit of flexible working for families is that being able to work part-time, or having flexible start and finish times, can make it easier for parents to balance work and childcare needs. Similarly, for those caring for a vulnerable adult or a child with a disability, flexible working can help people to manage their caring responsibilities while remaining in work.
I echo some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about how we regard flexible working. To be clear, flexible working is not solely about working from home—something on which, post pandemic, we have become somewhat focused. Indeed, the ACAS guidance sets out eight examples of flexible working, and working from home is only one of those eight. It talks about compressed hours, staggered hours, remote working, job sharing and part-time hours as well as working from home.
According to the 2023 flexible jobs index, although nine in 10 want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working. Equally, the Government recognise that business needs vary and that not all flexible working arrangements are possible in all circumstances. That is why the Government are increasing access to flexible working by making it the default, except where not reasonably feasible. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox: this is not a soft policy but an important economic and human management tool, and we should regard it as such.
Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson would require the Secretary of State to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal may award to an employee with a successful claim related to flexible working. The maximum compensation award is currently set at eight weeks’ pay for an employee bringing a claim to a tribunal.
Section 80I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already means that the Government may review the maximum number of weeks’ pay that can be awarded to an employee. If they consider it appropriate to do so, they can then use this power to change the specified number of weeks’ pay by which the maximum amount of an award of compensation is set. It is therefore not necessary to include anything further in the Bill. It is worth pointing out to noble Lords that the maximum has risen every year since its introduction, from £250 in 2002 to £719 now—so this is not something that is caught in aspic. Therefore, we would argue that a statutory review on the maximum compensation award within six months of Royal Assent could create uncertainty across the board and detract from some of the other important reforms that employees, employers, trade unions and the wider economic and business community will need to prepare for.
Before leaving this, it might be helpful to speak to the wider points from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on tribunals. I cannot speak in any great detail on this issue, but I understand that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of the employment tribunal system. I would hazard that it has not been sufficiently invested in in recent years, and the slowness of that system is certainly something that we should seek to address.
Before leaving Amendment 66, it is worth pointing out that there is a risk in creating uncertainty for both businesses and workers alike by creating the possibility of differing awards for different types of claims. As things stand, a number of types of claims—for example, relating to redundancy and unfair dismissal—face the same maximum award as those relating to flexible working. It might be undesirable to create confusion and undue complexity through in effect having a two-tier system.
I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, Amendment 64, which would extend the right to request flexible working to candidates with a job offer. In practice, the Government believe that this is already the case. The right to request flexible working, which is being strengthened in this Bill, is already a day one right. This means that employees can request flexible working from their first day in a role. We know that, in practice, many employers and employees will begin discussions about working arrangements before the candidate starts work.
As the noble Baroness said, before joining an organisation, informal and constructive discussions can offer a more effective way in which to identify working arrangements that work for employees and employers than a one-off formalised request and response might otherwise achieve. Mandating through legislation a right to request flexible working prior to appointment would not account for the fact that not all job offers come to fruition, for a number of reasons. However, candidates with a job offer have some limited rights. Discrimination and contractual rights are among those. The hypothetical example that the noble Baroness cited in her contribution would indeed be taken care of; discrimination based on protected characteristics is currently outlawed during the recruitment process. However, we would contend that it is not a status that we would want to overformalise at this point.
Additionally, under this proposal, employers would still have up to two months to consider and respond to a request. If the intention of this amendment is to significantly bring forward in time people’s ability to have a flexible working request accepted, it would not succeed in this respect. While the Government encourage employers to start conversations about flexible working with new starters at an early stage, it would not be appropriate to extend the legal framework for flexible working to all candidates under offer.
Lastly, to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on sex discrimination, I contend that this form of discrimination would actually carry a higher risk of penalty and payout than unreasonable refusal of flexible working, so it is probably a little out of place in the debate on this amendment.
To close, I therefore seek that noble Lords do not press their amendments in this group.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that the maximum cap applies to a number of areas, and many people believe that it is too low on those areas as well. Is he at least able to write to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and explain when the next review of the cap will take place, and the opportunities there will be for organisations such as Maternity Action and trade unions to make their case that the maximum cap should be higher?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for that; I would of course be very happy to write to her and my noble friend Lord Watson on this. The point that we are making is that there is already a mechanism in place to upgrade. That does not mean that it is not something that organisations concerned about the limit of compensation can lobby on, but the amendment as tabled is superfluous; it would not add any powers that are not already in law or in the Bill already.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Perhaps I could add something on that subject. I think that my noble friend suggested that there was one overall cap and that consistency was required, which is the point that my noble friend Lady O’Grady has developed. In fact, there is a range. Unfair dismissal is subject to a maximum per week for two years. Redundancy, which the Minister mentioned, is on a different basis; it is, essentially, one week’s pay for each year of employment up to a maximum of 20. Discrimination is dealt with on a different basis altogether, with no cap at all—it is the amount of compensation. So I do not think that consistency is really an answer. A general review would be very helpful, though.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I certainly will not try to better his knowledge of employment law and, indeed, compensation for penalties in employment law. What I will say is that the basic principle that this amendment is calling for is not necessary. We have the powers to do what is behind the amendment already in the Bill. Indeed, it is up to individual organisations to engage if they think that that power needs to be used more frequently or to a greater extent.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their participation and support and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe in particular for his comments, which demonstrated very practically the benefits of flexible working to businesses and in running teams effectively. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Just to emphasise further the potential benefits of flexible working for businesses and in terms of getting people re-engaged in the workplace, research conducted by the Behavioural Insights Team has shown that offering flexible working can attract up to 30% more applicants to job vacancies, and work by the ONS revealed that older workers working flexibly would be more likely to plan to retire later. Those are just two further specific examples.
I will speak just briefly to the other amendment in this group. I heard how well put the noble Baroness’s argument on behalf of her noble friend was, but I also hear the nervousness around increasing the number of issues that go to employment tribunals and then, across this Bill, the burden that will be placed on tribunals and the delays for both employers and employees caught in that system. The Minister said that perhaps it had, in recent years, been underinvested in, and that that was something the Government would seek to address. I would therefore be interested to know from Minister whether that is something that the Government will seek to address, whether he can say what additional investment will go into the employment tribunal system to prepare for the Bill and whether he will also commit to that investment going in ahead of the commencement of the Bill, so that we have the system in place to deal with some of the changes that we have heard about. He may wish to return to that point at a later point in the debate—he is not leaping to his feet right now.
I acknowledge that, although my amendment would change the legislative framework for flexible working, it is really about changing the culture to one where you can have the conversations as early and openly as possible. However, in how we have approached flexible working in legislation, we have underpinned those changes with legislative rights, so that people have rights to come back to.
I was slightly confused by the noble Lord’s response to my amendment. He said that, in practice, it is what happens anyway, but it would not be appropriate to underpin it with legislation. I was not totally clear why not, when we underpin the rest of the system of the right to request flexible working with legislation. He also said that if someone had their job offer withdrawn because they had made a request for flexible working, that would be covered by existing discrimination legislation. I do not believe that would be the case. It would be the case if their job offer had been withdrawn because they had a protected characteristic.
Actually, I think that one of the important things about the shift in flexible working that we have seen in recent years, and the 2014 move to extend that right to request to everyone, not just mums, dads or carers, is the changing of the culture around what flexible working means. It is really important for those people with caring responsibilities and other responsibilities in their lives, but it is really important for a whole host of other reasons, and we cannot second-guess people’s individual circumstances when they request flexible working. If someone has been made a job offer and they request flexible working, I do not think that current legislation will protect them if that job offer is withdrawn on that basis.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I would be very happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify our understanding of the way that the discrimination order would operate in that scenario. Perhaps the way that I was explaining it was not clear enough, but we think that it is the case that a lot of what she is asking for in the amendment will be covered.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that offer; I really appreciate it. Just to touch on the points made by my noble friend Lord Jackson, I absolutely heard his support for flexible working. In fact, one of the points I just made is that I am really keen, as noble Lords will hear from me on later amendments on paternity leave, that we shift some of the assumptions around who might need and use flexible working and other kinds of flexibility in the workplace, so that we do not assume that it is just the women or the mums. Then they might actually face less discrimination, because an employer cannot look at someone and say, “I think this person’s going to make a particular request of me and I’m a bit nervous about that: how’s that going to work?”
The whole basis of this, and the whole success behind it, will be in having the support of employers. This is an area where culture has shifted. There is further to go among some employers, but they really see the benefits of this in their workplaces, so although I have tabled an amendment to provide a legislative underpinning to things, I think it is about changing culture and having a more open conversation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(1AZA) But where the employer is— (a) the Security Service,(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or(c) the Government Communication Headquarters,subsection (2)(b) does not apply, and the notification under subsection (1)(aa) need not explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on the ground or those grounds.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude the security services from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 65 I shall speak also to Amendments 65A and 67. Amendment 65 is necessary because it lies at the very heart of the nature of the work that is performed by these agencies. The Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters, collectively known as the intelligence agencies, are at the heart of the United Kingdom’s national security apparatus. Their roles involve highly sensitive operations, often conducted in real time and under exceptionally stringent conditions. They work to protect the nation from terrorism, espionage and cyberattacks, among other threats. The national security landscape is dynamic and fast-moving, and it requires the utmost flexibility, discretion and responsiveness from their employees.
In this context, the introduction of provisions for flexible working could unintentionally create significant risks to national security. The need for immediate action, tight schedules and often secretive operations simply cannot be fully compatible with the predictability that flexible working arrangements might demand. We think it is essential that we avoid the unintended consequences of applying the Bill’s flexible working provisions to the intelligence services. Arguably, this list of services could be expanded, of course, to other operations that have implications for national security. As I said, these services operate in highly confidential environments and their work often involves time-sensitive operations that demand secrecy and agility.
This is obviously a probing amendment: I want to ask the Minister what conversations the Government have had with the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters regarding the potential impact of the flexible working provisions on their operations.
On Amendment 67, again I join in the broad support for flexible working that we have just heard in the last group, but this amendment presents an important opportunity to better understand the implications of introducing such a right. We think we ought to approach it with a slightly critical eye: specifically, we need to consider the Regulatory Policy Committee’s feedback on the clause, which has raised several concerns that cannot be overlooked. The RPC rating for this clause was red across all three core areas of rationale for intervention, identification of options, and justification of preferred way forward.
The RPC has stated that there is a lack of sufficient evidence presented to justify the need for this intervention. In particular, it highlighted that there is little evidence to suggest that employers are rejecting flexible working requests unreasonably. This is a key point that must be addressed. The committee’s wider concerns suggest that, without strong evidence of a widespread issue with employers rejecting requests, the Government are introducing a policy that is based on assumptions rather than concrete data. What problem are the Government trying to solve by introducing the right to request flexible working if the case is as the committee has described? Do they in effect believe that the RPC’s assessment is incorrect? What data or evidence do they have to demonstrate that employers are systematically denying such requests in a way that harms workers?
One of the most important questions that this clause raises is whether the intervention is justified. The RPC has pointed out that the rationale for introducing the right to request flexible working has not been sufficiently established, so the purpose of tabling this amendment is to find out what the Government have done in this area and to suggest that the overall environment around this debate would be enhanced by a broader understanding of the situation under consideration.
Amendment 65A seeks to provide clarity and fairness regarding the refusal of flexible working applications in roles where such flexibility would fundamentally alter the nature of the job or undermine critical operational needs. Clause 9, as drafted, is obviously well intentioned but is ultimately a blunt instrument. New subsection (1ZA) sets out a list of what are deemed reasonable grounds to refuse a flexible working request, but they are largely subjective and difficult to quantify in practice. For example, how can an editor reasonably be expected to prove that a journalist’s writing has deteriorated because they are working from home? How does one assess the decline in creative spontaneity that often arises when collaboration in the newsroom is replaced by isolated remote working? This ambiguity could create a climate of uncertainty for employers. Rather than making legally risky judgments, many may simply acquiesce to requests even where remote work may compromise essential aspects of the role. I go back to the example of journalism: this could disrupt the delicate balance of the newsroom and undermine quality, editorial cohesion and the development of junior reporters through in-person mentoring, and so on.
This is precisely why we think that sector-specific exemptions are needed. A one-size-fits-all approach, as is implied in the current drafting, is simply not adequate. This amendment provides a clearer and more realistic framework, recognising that in certain sectors and occupations physical presence is not optional but essential. To expect employers in some of these sectors to navigate the current subjective standards is both unfair and, we think, unworkable. This amendment seeks to offer a constructive alternative by allowing a reasonable refusal where the core nature of the role would be compromised, and by specifying sectors where that risk is most acute.
As I have said, we support flexible working in principle, but flexibility must be implemented with common sense and a clear-eyed understanding of operational realities. We do not believe that the current drafting provides that assurance. We urge the Government to take serious note of these amendments, because we may have to return to them on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. I notice that Clause 9(3) inserts a subsection into the Employment Rights Act which allows for the refusal of a flexible working application in conditional circumstances under two criteria:
“only if … the employer considers that the application should be refused on a ground or grounds listed in subsection (1ZA), and … it is reasonable for the employer to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds”.
A double test is being applied for the decision to refuse an application for flexible working.
Then, the list that the Government have provided in the Bill, at subsection (1ZA) lists grounds from (a) to (i). One might think that this list had been prepared by the unions, because it sets out perhaps a very one-sided view of what the flexible working application might apply. It is indeed pretty abstruse in its expression. It sets out that the grounds mentioned are
“the burden of additional costs”,
the
“detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; … inability to re-organise work among … staff; … inability to recruit additional staff”.
All of this is going to be the subject of considerable debate, one would anticipate, in any future employment tribunal claim, and has an air of unreality about it.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 65A refers to
“any other sector where the core duties require in-person collaboration, physical presence, or real-time operational responsiveness”.
That could well be argued to be teaching, of course.
As my noble friend Lord Katz said, flexible working is not just working at home—it has a whole range of other alternatives and ways of doing it. The lack of the ability to work flexibly has real consequences for the delivery of a profession that I know a lot about, which is teaching. Some 76% of teachers are women. The biggest proportion of teachers who leave the profession every year are women in their 30s.
I declare an interest in that I am chairing the commission on teaching. We have commissioned some independent research on this issue from the Key foundation, which finds that women in their 30s with children leave teaching in huge numbers. It was 9,000 last year, the biggest number on record of women leaving the profession. They leave when they have children because their requests to work part-time or flexibly are denied.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, asked whether employers were just routinely refusing flexible working. Well, in education, yes, they are. The rate of flexible working among graduate professions is about 46%. In teaching, 2% of teachers last year asked whether they could work flexibly. Those requests are routinely denied by employers who have a very poor understanding of what flexible working involves and, frankly, by employers who refuse flexible working because of a one-size-fits-all policy and then find that the teachers who are so precious to them leave the profession.
Last week I spoke to a young teacher with two children who asked whether she could have two registration periods off a week—she would make up the time in other ways—because her youngest child, who is three, was finding it difficult to settle at nursery. That was refused and she has now given in her resignation.
Work on this has been done by the Key foundation and by the Missing Mothers report from the New Britain Project, authored by Anna McShane. When she looked at the reasons for women leaving the profession in their 30s, she found that overwhelmingly they leave because they do not feel that they can manage the demands of the job full time and the demands of bringing up a family. The main recommendation in that report was that flexible working should be supported and encouraged. So, if an amendment that refers to
“any other sector where the core duties require in-person collaboration, physical presence, or real-time operational responsiveness”
were to be included in the Bill, it would be used up and down the land by education employers as a “get out of jail free card” for flexible working requests. As the Minister said, that means all sorts of things, including the right to flexible working—and the DfE defines flexible working as flexible and part-time.
We have to get out of the idea that there are whole swathes of the economy—education being the one I know most about—where flexible working is just not possible. We have to start thinking differently about this. If this amendment were agreed, it would make doubly difficult the right to request and to engage in flexible working, which would have such an effect on retaining teachers in the profession and on raising educational standards in our schools. So I think it is a very poor amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will ask one simple question: what is flexible working? Perhaps the Minister could reply to that. I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said; I have always encouraged people who want to work part time, dual workers and so on. I have worked at a senior level in business and in government, both as a civil servant and as a Minister, and the truth is that you have to show some flexibility when things are difficult. That is what my noble friends are trying to capture in the amendment they have put forward.
We need to try to find a way through on this, to encourage flexible working. However, we also have to consider the needs of the employer. That will be true in the business sector—which I know—in the enterprise sector, in the charities sector and of course in government. It is a very important debate and any light that can be thrown on it by either the Minister or my noble friend Lord Murray, with his legal hat on, would be very helpful.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this debate has been more interesting than I expected. In looking at Amendment 65, we should acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, with his former ministerial responsibilities, had considerable interaction with the services that he described, so we should take him seriously.
In Amendment 65A, he sets out certain sectors. However, in seeking to deliver unambiguity, I think he has introduced new ambiguity. Sector-specific exemptions are bringing their own problems. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Murray, what a journalist is. Is it a card-carrying member of the NUJ or is it someone who blogs and calls themselves a journalist, or a group of people? That is just one example of the ambiguity that a sector system brings in. So I am drawn to the idea that we have something like subsection (1ZA) in Clause 9(3).
If noble Lords are worried about the wooliness of it—I am not sure that was the word that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used—we can work to firm that language up. But to describe the job, rather than try to think of every single job title we want to include in primary legislation, is a better way of going about it. If the description is too difficult to nail, I am sure it is not beyond the wit of us all to find a better way of describing it.
Had the noble Lord, Lord Murray, been here a little earlier, he would have heard the shortcomings of the tribunal system being well exercised, and some comments from the noble Lord to the effect that the MoJ is looking at it. To return to that point, in my speech on the last group I asked for a meeting, so perhaps the Ministers could facilitate a meeting with interested parties on the Bill and the MoJ to find out how it is moving forward on tribunals; we need some line of sight on that. It is something of a capitulation if we say, “The tribunals are no good, so we’re not going to make the right legislation because they won’t be there to uphold it”. We have a duty to make the right legislation, to put it in place and to make sure that the tribunals can deliver.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I share much of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says. But the point I was making was that the answer from the Government is, “We’re going to provide imprecision in this legislation, and we’re going to let the employment tribunal sort it out and tell us what it means”. My point was twofold. First, that will take far too long because of the chaos in the tribunal system, and secondly, structurally, the employment tribunal cannot give an answer to that at first instance because it is not a court of record.
Lord Fox (LD)
Those are good points. Again, had the noble Lord seen an earlier episode of the soap opera of this Committee, he would have heard noble Lords from all around talk about firming up imprecision, which is why I talked about firming up the imprecision of that list of attributes rather than trying to produce a list of businesses and activities that somehow should come into this—an impossible job, frankly. Of course we should have a war on imprecision but, in the end, there are going to be some things that tribunals rule on that will be important, and we need to have the tribunals active and quick to do so.
To some extent, there is an element of creativity around the fungibility of some of these criteria—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, made that point. If we have some flexibility of interpretation, schools and other organisations that want to hang on to valued colleagues will find a way of using it in order to do that. If we start to rule out professions or rule in very hard and fast rules, we lose the opportunity to retain and attract certain groups of people. I understand the point made, that the more of that fungibility there is, the more so-called imprecision, and there is a balance between the two. That is why I still think that if we have ideas around new subsection (1ZA), that is the way forward on this rather than a list of jobs.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling this group of amendments related to flexible working.
Amendment 65 would exempt security services from the flexible working measures we are introducing through the Bill. These measures include ensuring that employers refuse a flexible working request only where it is reasonable to do so, on the basis of one of the business grounds set out in legislation and requiring that they explain the basis for that decision to their employee. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the existing provision the Government have made to safeguard national security in relation to flexible working.
I will explain the measure taken in the Bill. Clause 9(7) brings the flexible working provisions into the scope of Section 202 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 202 states that if in the opinion of a Minister the disclosure of information would be contrary to national security,
“nothing in any of the provisions to which this section applies requires any person to disclose the information, and … no person shall disclose the information in any proceedings in any court or tribunal relating to any of those provisions”.
By bringing the flexible working provisions under the scope of Section 202 of the 1996 Act, the Government have already taken the necessary and proportionate steps to protect national security. To respond directly to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, we have indeed engaged with, discussed and agreed this approach with the intelligence services.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I accept and am somewhat reassured by his answer on Amendment 65; it is good to know that the security services employers have been properly consulted and are content with this legislation. That is to be welcomed, and I thank the noble Lord for it.
I was most interested in the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. I believe she said—I apologise if I am misquoting—that employers have a poor understanding of what flexible working involves in education. I am sure they do, and that a lot of parents and people who are involved in education do. It rather makes the case for why Amendment 67 is necessary. The RPC’s opinion may not have related to the policy, but it still remains red: the fact is that the impact assessment was not good enough.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a very good point about what flexible working is. We agree that flexibility is to be encouraged, but I noticed that the noble Lord has now relied twice on the eight types of flexible working identified by ACAS. I suspect that that is not widely understood in the public domain. The proposed impact assessment would go a long way to make it much clearer what people could and should be asking for, what employers should be thinking about, the likely economic impacts and the more societal impacts from the right to request flexible working.
This would help the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, as well, because people would have a much broader understanding of what it means in teaching. Obviously, 100% of teachers cannot work from home—that goes without saying—so what does this actually mean in practice? I do not think that anybody has much clarity about that, including, by the sounds of it, employees and many teachers themselves.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
I am chairing a commission that will be very clear about what it means and how it can be employed in schools. I hope that will enlighten lots of people.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I look forward to being enlightened.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, again made some very good points about the need to describe the job; I accept that that was an imperfect way of tabling that amendment. However, I leap into the defence of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth from his attacks by the Fox. As I heard it, my noble friend was not saying that employment tribunals are no good; he was saying that there is a backlog, that they are probably underresourced and underfunded and that, because of their structural nature, they do not necessarily resolve things. An increasing reliance on them to resolve things will not necessarily have the desired effect. That is an incredibly important point that we should return to in the discussion that the Minister offered the Committee because, as I said in my last summary, we are placing an increasing reliance on employment tribunals to resolve an awful lot of the unanswered questions that are being discussed as a result of the Bill. For things not to be resolved even after they have got to an employment tribunal, after a long delay, seems a little short-sighted.
For now, as I say, I am somewhat reassured on Amendment 65, and I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. We should return to the idea of Amendment 67 and a much broader impact assessment, but for now I am content to withdraw Amendment 65.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(b) in subsection (2), for “four” substitute “two”.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 standing in my name. I will speak to Amendment 68 first. It concerns the removal of the three-day waiting period for statutory sick pay. While we recognise the principle of supporting workers during periods of ill health, we also have to acknowledge the pressures that this places on employers, particularly small businesses which, unlike the state, bear the direct cost of statutory sick pay.
The original waiting period served as a guard-rail, ensuring that statutory sick pay was reserved for genuine and sustained periods of incapacity. Its removal would risk increasing claims for short-term absences, many of which might previously have gone unclaimed or been resolved informally.
The proposal in the Bill to abolish waiting days for statutory sick pay for all workers, including those on temporary contracts and working via employment agencies, introduces an additional cost burden for many small and medium-sized recruitment firms in particular, especially in a period of stagnant growth.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the minute hand of legislation is approaching the blessed relief of adjournment, so I am going to reserve what I have to say about statutory sick pay to when I speak to Amendments 73 and 74 in the next group, in which I think some issues of the costs are addressed. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I have come up with amendments that are broadly similar, and I think it would be more appropriate to speak there.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have moved on and that we are now debating the Bill’s important provisions to improve the provision of statutory sick pay for millions of people across the country. I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking to them. These amendments would significantly change the statutory sick pay measures in the Bill.
The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening statutory sick pay is part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. These changes are important. Estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza-like illnesses are acquired in the workplace. One sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming sick, according to WPI Economics’ modelling.
The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earnings limit from the SSP system will therefore benefit employers by reducing presenteeism, which in turn can lead to overall productivity increases and can contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff. This can help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, and also contribute to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.
I will turn first to Amendments 68 and 70. Removing the waiting period is essential to ensure that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick, regardless of whether they are an agency worker. Removing the waiting period will also better enable phased returns to work, which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return to and stay in work. This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, contributing to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.
I regret that the noble Lord’s amendment would make this more challenging, as it would mean that employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for statutory sick pay. I do, however, understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the impact of the waiting period removal on businesses, but if employers have the right policies and practices in place—and most good employers do—the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can, of course, be mitigated. Crucially, the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. We have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because, for example, many on our own Benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher. I am sure they will make their concerns heard at some point during the passage of the Bill. It is not a great deal of money—as I say, it is £15 per employee—and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.
On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers, one of the fundamental principles of the Bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that employment agencies have more of an arm’s-length arrangement with their agency workers, but I would say the opposite: in fact, employment agencies are in a powerful relationship over their agency workers, meaning that those workers are less likely to abuse such a scheme.
Amendment 71 seeks to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so that they would receive no more statutory sick pay than they would be entitled to if they worked for only one employer. However, this would be administratively very complicated to deliver for businesses, particularly SMEs, and carries a high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would particularly harm the very lowest-paid people who are working a limited number of hours. I also question the necessity of such an amendment. As it stands, employees with more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit. The measures in the Bill will not change that, and I regret that this amendment would impact only the lowest-paid employees.
That is all I have to say on this issue at this stage, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the Minister says that she understands the concern that has been expressed. We are aware too that many agencies have raised with the Government the serious impact on small businesses and the risk of increased absenteeism. I believe their concerns are valid and I hope the Minister will continue to keep an open door for those agencies to perhaps respond in more detail directly to the Minister.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, it would be very helpful if he could confirm and clarify that, in expressing a concern that removing the waiting days would lead to more and sporadic absenteeism, it is not being implied that workers are swinging the lead. If it was being implied, where is the evidence?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Of course it is not being implied. It is outrageous that the noble Baroness should think so and voice so in this debate, which has seen a very calm and careful consideration by the Minister, who sets a good example for us all. I hope the noble Baroness will follow it. I beg leave to withdraw.